🐛Computational backend: Transmission of computational state wrong rabbitmq routing key

[sanderegg]

What do these changes do?

The RabbitMQ routing key was missing a .. This prevented the frontend to get the project updates when the computational backend was running. Thus creating some e2e issues.

Related issue/s

How to test

Dev-ops

[wvangeit]

Thanks

[sanderegg]

@mergify queue

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 73.53%. Comparing base (c9e3d21) to head (893f4ce).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (c9e3d21) and HEAD (893f4ce). Click for more details.

HEAD has 22 uploads less than BASE

Flag	BASE (c9e3d21)	HEAD (893f4ce)
unittests	32	10

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #8158       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   88.10%   73.53%   -14.58%     
===========================================
  Files        1893     1154      -739     
  Lines       72916    47972    -24944     
  Branches     1279      496      -783     
===========================================
- Hits        64243    35276    -28967     
- Misses       8293    12568     +4275     
+ Partials      380      128      -252     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
integrationtests	63.14% <ø> (-1.09%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from 881fe3a
unittests	88.25% <0.00%> (+1.52%)	⬆️

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

Components	Coverage Δ
pkg_aws_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_celery_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_dask_task_models_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_models_library	93.12% <0.00%> (ø)
pkg_notifications_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_postgres_database	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_service_integration	70.19% <ø> (ø)
pkg_service_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_settings_library	∅ <ø> (∅)
pkg_simcore_sdk	85.05% <ø> (ø)
agent	∅ <ø> (∅)
api_server	∅ <ø> (∅)
autoscaling	∅ <ø> (∅)
catalog	92.34% <ø> (ø)
clusters_keeper	∅ <ø> (∅)
dask_sidecar	∅ <ø> (∅)
datcore_adapter	97.94% <ø> (ø)
director	∅ <ø> (∅)
director_v2	77.19% <ø> (-13.84%)	⬇️
dynamic_scheduler	∅ <ø> (∅)
dynamic_sidecar	87.30% <ø> (-2.78%)	⬇️
efs_guardian	89.76% <ø> (ø)
invitations	91.44% <ø> (ø)
payments	92.60% <ø> (ø)
resource_usage_tracker	92.55% <ø> (+0.47%)	⬆️
storage	∅ <ø> (∅)
webclient	∅ <ø> (∅)
webserver	57.53% <ø> (-30.72%)	⬇️

---

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 c9e3d21...893f4ce. 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.

[mergify]

queue

🟠 Waiting for conditions to match

• -closed [📌 queue requirement]
• any of: [🔀 queue conditions]
  • all of: [📌 queue conditions of queue default]
    • any of: [🛡 GitHub branch protection]
      • check-neutral = deploy to dockerhub
      • check-skipped = deploy to dockerhub
      • check-success = deploy to dockerhub
    • any of: [🛡 GitHub branch protection]
      • check-neutral = system-tests
      • check-skipped = system-tests
      • check-success = system-tests
    • any of: [🛡 GitHub branch protection]
      • check-neutral = unit-tests
      • check-skipped = unit-tests
      • check-success = unit-tests
    • any of: [🛡 GitHub branch protection]
      • check-neutral = integration-tests
      • check-skipped = integration-tests
      • check-success = integration-tests
    • any of: [🛡 GitHub branch protection]
      • check-neutral = build-test-images (frontend) / build-test-images
      • check-skipped = build-test-images (frontend) / build-test-images
      • check-success = build-test-images (frontend) / build-test-images
    • #approved-reviews-by >= 2 [🛡 GitHub branch protection]
    • #approved-reviews-by>=2
    • #changes-requested-reviews-by = 0 [🛡 GitHub branch protection]
    • #changes-requested-reviews-by=0
    • #review-threads-unresolved = 0 [🛡 GitHub branch protection]
    • #review-threads-unresolved=0
    • -conflict
    • -draft
    • base=master
    • branch-protection-review-decision = APPROVED [🛡 GitHub branch protection]
    • label!=🤖-do-not-merge
    • label=🤖-automerge
    • any of: [🛡 GitHub branch protection]
      • check-success = check OAS' are up to date
      • check-neutral = check OAS' are up to date
      • check-skipped = check OAS' are up to date
    • any of: [🛡 GitHub branch protection]
      • check-success = SonarCloud Code Analysis
      • check-neutral = SonarCloud Code Analysis
      • check-skipped = SonarCloud Code Analysis
• -conflict [📌 queue requirement]
• -draft [📌 queue requirement]
• any of: [📌 queue -> configuration change requirements]
  • -mergify-configuration-changed
  • check-success = Configuration changed

[pcrespov]

Thx

Q: why? Why other routing keys are just identifiers?
e.g.

    def routing_key(self) -> str | None:
        return f"{self.wallet_id}"

[sanderegg]

Thx

Q: why? Why other routing keys are just identifiers? e.g.

    def routing_key(self) -> str | None:
        return f"{self.wallet_id}"

not all of them. and then it depends how the topic is set on the other end. I will check. good point.

[sanderegg]

Thx

Q: why? Why other routing keys are just identifiers? e.g.

    def routing_key(self) -> str | None:
        return f"{self.wallet_id}"

@pcrespov Here is the reason:

# services/web/server/src/simcore_service_webserver/notifications/project_logs.py
async def subscribe(app: web.Application, project_id: ProjectID) -> None:
    rabbit_client: RabbitMQClient = get_rabbitmq_client(app)

    for exchange in _SUBSCRIBABLE_EXCHANGES:
        exchange_name = exchange.get_channel_name()
        await rabbit_client.add_topics(exchange_name, topics=[f"{project_id}.*"]) # Note the dot

[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