✨ web-server RPC: exposes list_my_projects_marked_as_jobs

[pcrespov]

What do these changes do?

Exposes the list_my_projects_marked_as_jobs method on the web-server RPC interface to enable the api-server to retrieve a paginated list of all projects marked as jobs.

• Implements service-layer: simcore_service_webserver.projects._jobs_service
• Implements repository-layer: simcore_service_webserver.projects._jobs_repository
• Exposes function to RPC API
  • server side: projects._controller.projects_rpc
  • client side: servicelib.rabbitmq.rpc_interfaces.webserver.projects
  • models: models_library.rpc.webserver.projects (shared)
  • exceptions: servicelib.rabbitmq.rpc_interfaces.webserver.errors (shared)

NOTE: The current organization of RPC interfaces feels fragmented and hard to work with. We should consider restructuring them into dedicated Python packages (e.g., webserver-rpc-client, webserver-rest-client) to improve clarity and maintainability. The only inconvenient with the proposed approach is that the client has to be installed in the server in order to share models and exceptions. In any case, we already do that with the current setup.

Related issue/s

• Main part of the RPC interface needed for 1. Support listing all solver jobs from a given user. This means implementing GET /v0/solvers/-/releases/-/jobs/page #7399

How to test

cd services/web/server
make install-dev
pytest -vv tests/unit/with_dbs/02/test_projects_rpc.py
pytest -vv tests/unit/with_dbs/02/test_projects__jobs_service.py

Dev-ops

None

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 84.37500% with 10 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 87.33%. Comparing base (b4ffe76) to head (2f4901c).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #7534      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   87.47%   87.33%   -0.15%     
==========================================
  Files        1742     1570     -172     
  Lines       67432    63499    -3933     
  Branches     1144      910     -234     
==========================================
- Hits        58987    55457    -3530     
+ Misses       8124     7782     -342     
+ Partials      321      260      -61     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integrationtests	65.20% <53.65%> (-0.10%)	⬇️
unittests	86.46% <84.37%> (-0.20%)	⬇️

Components	Coverage Δ
api	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_aws_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_dask_task_models_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_models_library	92.00% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
pkg_notifications_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_postgres_database	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_service_integration	70.03% <ø> (ø)
pkg_service_library	72.53% <0.00%> (-0.13%)	⬇️
pkg_settings_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_simcore_sdk	85.40% <ø> (ø)
agent	96.46% <ø> (ø)
api_server	90.26% <ø> (ø)
autoscaling	96.08% <ø> (ø)
catalog	92.52% <ø> (ø)
clusters_keeper	99.24% <ø> (ø)
dask_sidecar	91.29% <ø> (ø)
datcore_adapter	98.12% <ø> (ø)
director	76.78% <ø> (-0.10%)	⬇️
director_v2	91.30% <ø> (ø)
dynamic_scheduler	97.40% <ø> (ø)
dynamic_sidecar	90.11% <ø> (ø)
efs_guardian	89.79% <ø> (ø)
invitations	93.28% <ø> (ø)
payments	92.66% <ø> (ø)
resource_usage_tracker	88.96% <ø> (-0.28%)	⬇️
storage	87.59% <ø> (ø)
webclient	∅ <ø> (∅)
webserver	85.97% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update b4ffe76...2f4901c. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[Copilot]

Copilot encountered an error and was unable to review this pull request. You can try again by re-requesting a review.

[matusdrobuliak66]

Looks good, thanks! 💯

[pcrespov]

@giancarloromeo @matusdrobuliak66 any comments on the note?

[bisgaard-itis]

Very nice! Thanks a lot for the effort

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[giancarloromeo]

I agree with separation into different packages, but I don't get this:

The only inconvenient with the proposed approach is that the client has to be installed in the server in order to share models and exceptions.

Why models and exceptions can't live in a separate package as well, installed when needed?