4 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
not	94742a261f	feat: read projection sourced from the register in Objecten (closes #153) (#155) ... ## What & why S-19b-2, closing out ADR-0028's stated direction: **the read projection is now derived from the `RegisterRecord` in Objecten, not from ZGW zaak events.** Until now the subscriber listened on `zaken` and *inferred* register state from case events — a `zaak/create` meant INGEDIEND, and any `status/create` was assumed to be the approval (it may not read OpenZaak, so it could not tell statustypen apart). The reference wasn't in the notification at all, so every projection made a second hop to the ACL. The register — a fact about a person — was being reconstructed by guessing at the lifecycle of the case that produced it. - The subscriber's abonnement moves to the `objecten` kanaal (S-19b-1 made it publish). - An Objecten notification carries **no record data**, only the object URL, so the record is read back through the ACL (`POST /register-records/read`) — §8.1 applies to Objecten exactly as ADR-0028 established. - The record carries `id`, `status` and `reference`, so the row *is* the record: `IsZaakCreated`, `IsZaakStatusSet`, `ZaakUrl`, `ZaakId` and `ToEntry`'s `Resource == "status"` inference are all gone, and so is the ACL enrichment hop. - **The ACL now writes an INGEDIEND record on submit.** Without it, re-sourcing would silently drop every submitted registration from the public register, since only approval wrote a record. - `processed_notifications` holds the projected row (`register_id`, `status`, `reference`) instead of the ZGW event, so a rebuild is a replay with no mapping rules and no upstream reads at all. **ADR-0030** records it. ADR-0028's open caveat — record written but not yet read, "the two must agree" — is closed: there is one source now. Closes #153 ## Definition of Done - [x] Linked Gitea issue (above). - [x] Failing tests committed before the implementation — two red/green pairs, ACL side (06c0444 → 566ef7d) and subscriber side (142ed45 → 8af09b2). - [x] Refactor commit follows (b496ac9). - [x] Conventional Commits referencing the issue (`refs #153`). - [x] CI green — all six jobs on b30fa66, `verify-stack` end to end including the e2e. - [x] `docker compose up` from a fresh clone reaches green health checks within 3 minutes (`verify-stack`'s bring-up step — see the wait-healthy fix below). - [x] Docs updated — ADR-0030 added, ADR-0028's consequence + caveat annotated, BACKLOG.md, e2e header comment. - [x] ADR added in `docs/architecture/`. - [x] Demo note in `docs/demo-script.md` — n/a: no user-visible change. The openbaar register shows the same two statuses for the same registrations; only where they come from changed. ## Notes for reviewers **The decision I'd most like a second opinion on** is the one the issue didn't settle: what happens to INGEDIEND. Objecten held only INGESCHREVEN records, so re-sourcing forced a choice between (a) the ACL also writing on submit, (b) a public register that lists only actual registrations, or (c) a hybrid keeping both kanalen. I took (a): visible behaviour is unchanged and the register holds the whole lifecycle. (b) is arguably the better *semantics* for a public register but narrows what the portal shows and reads against PRD §68 ("~50 register entries with diverse statuses"); (c) leaves the projection half-derived from ZGW, which is the coupling ADR-0028 set out to remove. All three are laid out in ADR-0030. **The dedup key is the projected row**, `objecten:object:{url}:{status}:{reference}` — not the object URL (the ACL upserts *one object per registration*, so submit and approval notify about the same URL and the approval would be swallowed as a duplicate) and not URL+actie (a retried approval is a second `update`). Redeliveries collapse, genuine state changes don't. §8.6. **The migration drops columns rather than renaming them.** EF scaffolded renames — `resource` → `register_id`, `zaak_id` → `status` — which would have carried ZGW values into columns meaning something else, and a rebuild would then have projected that garbage. It also empties both tables: a pre-slice row describes a zaak event the new projector can't reproject, and those registrations have no RegisterRecord in Objecten either, so they're not re-derivable from the new source. Stated as a ceiling in the ADR — fine while stacks are ephemeral, backfill from Objecten if a long-lived environment ever needs it. **`run-projection-check.sh` now opens its zaak through the ACL** instead of straight against OpenZaak, because the ACL is what writes the record. A zaak created behind the ACL's back produces no projection row — that's the re-source working, not a gap. ## Three fixes CI found, none of them in the projection logic 1. **`wait-healthy.sh` matched the wrong container** (744f91a). Bring-up timed out with `TIMEOUT: 'objecten' not healthy (status=none)` while the `docker ps` it dumps showed objecten `Up 9 minutes (healthy)`. `--filter name=` is a substring match, so `objecten` also matches `objecten-db`/`objecten-redis`/`objecten-celery`, and `head -1` took whichever docker listed first — the celery worker has no healthcheck, hence `status=none`. Latent since those services landed and decided purely by listing order; `objecttypen` matches `objecttypen-db` the same way. Anchored on the compose replica suffix, which the verify scripts already do. 2. **The ACL had to be repointed at OpenZaak's IP** (7e0897a). Opening the zaak through the ACL put this check in the same bind run-domain-check.sh already handles: `400 {"name":"zaaktype","code":"bad-url","reason":"Voer een geldige URL in."}`. OpenZaak reflects the request Host into the zaaktype URL and then rejects it on zaak-create when single-label — the mechanism compose already documents on `ACL_OPENZAAK_BASEURL`. 3. **Approval arrives as `partial_update`, not `update`** (0dd26a7 → b30fa66) — the one real bug in the slice. The ACL upserts with PATCH; DRF routes it through the notifying `update()` but names the action `partial_update`, so the projector dropped every approval. Only the e2e could catch it: `verify-projection` drives a submit, and per ADR-0028 the e2e is the only check that drives a *real* approval. `verify-tracing` also failed once (run 722) on a path this PR doesn't touch, and passed on a plain re-run of the same commit. Tempo logged `pusher failed to consume trace data` / `distributor_pool failing healthcheck` — it dropped spans under runner load rather than the trace chain being broken. Filed as **#156** rather than absorbed here. **Correction to the #152 PR notes:** I wrote there that celery concurrency was "the next knob" if verify-stack got tight. It isn't — `CELERY_WORKER_CONCURRENCY` already defaults to 1 in the Maykin image, so `objecten-celery` is already a single-process worker. Noted in #156. **Possible follow-up, deliberately not done here:** an `openzaak.local` network alias mirroring `objecten.local` would remove the ACL-repoint dance from both run-domain-check.sh and run-projection-check.sh. It changes the host in every zaak URL the system produces, which is too broad a ripple to land inside an unrelated slice — worth its own issue. **Known costs, all in the ADR:** submission is now two writes across two modules and eventually consistent (same posture ADR-0028 accepted for approval); projecting now depends on the ACL being reachable on the main path, not just for enrichment (NRC retries, so it converges); and OpenZaak still publishes to `zaken` with nothing in the product listening — kept because `verify-nrc` asserts that path.Reviewed-on: #155	2026-09-01 07:26:33 +00:00
not	9997da8beb	feat(#78): one citizen reference across self-service and the openbaar register (#79) ... ## What & why Before this change the self-service confirmation and the openbaar register showed **different** identifiers, so a citizen could not look their registration back up (#78). Now both surface the same **reference**: - **domain → ACL (write):** the domain `registrationId` is set as the zaak's `identificatie` on `POST /zaken`. - **event-subscriber → ACL (read):** the subscriber reads the zaak's `identificatie` back through the ACL (§8.1 — only the ACL talks to ZGW) via a new `POST /zaken/reference`, and stores it on the projection row **and** the `processed_notifications` replay log. - **BFF + openbaar:** the public view exposes `id/status/reference` (never bsn/naam) and searches by id or reference; the register's "Referentie" column shows the reference. Storing the reference in the replay log keeps ADR-0008's **rebuild-is-log-only** invariant intact — `/admin/rebuild` reproduces the reference without re-reading the ACL. Decision recorded in **ADR-0012**. ## Definition of Done - [x] Linked issue: #78 - [x] Tests written first; red → green per layer - [x] Unit + acceptance green (`make unit`): domain 49, acl 27, bff 20, event-subscriber 19, acceptance 7 - [x] Frontend lint + test green (`nx run-many -t lint test`) - [x] Mutation ≥ break(90): acl 100%, event-subscriber 100%, bff 100%, domain 98.41% (pre-existing FlowableWorkflowClient baseline, untouched) - [x] e2e extended: confirmation reference == register reference - [x] openapi.json + api-client regenerated (drift guard green) - [x] ADR-0012 added; demo-script note appended - [x] `Acl__BaseUrl` wired for the subscriber in compose closes #78 Reviewed-on: #79	2026-07-14 14:01:49 +00:00
notandClaude Opus 4.8	a111e5cc20	test(event-subscriber): ratchet projector mutation baseline to 100% (refs #7) ... Sharpen the projector tests so Stryker has no survivors (was 75%): assert a replayed delivery never reaches the store (upsert count, not just row count), that two distinct zaken get distinct rows (pins the idempotency key), that rebuild clears stale rows, and a Theory over wrong kanaal/resource/actie combinations (pins the zaken/zaak/create guard). Add the per-service Stryker config + solution; break threshold 90 (CLAUDE.md §5). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-06-30 15:11:06 +02:00
notandClaude Opus 4.8	c70840e5b7	test(event-subscriber): project zaak-created notifications into the read projection (refs #7) ... Failing unit + acceptance tests for the Event Subscriber's NotificationProjector: a zaken/zaak/create notification yields one INGEDIEND projection row, duplicate deliveries collapse to one row, non-zaak/non-create notifications are ignored, and a rebuild repopulates the projection from the durable notification log (PRD §8.4). The projector is a no-op stub so the tests compile and fail on the assertions; the implementation follows in the green commit. The notification log doubles as the idempotency guard and rebuild source so a rebuild needs no OpenZaak access (§8.1). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-06-30 14:47:16 +02:00