Files
register-referentie/services/acl/Acl.Infrastructure/ObjectenGateway.cs
T
not 94742a261f
CI / build (push) Successful in 1m7s
CI / lint (push) Successful in 1m26s
CI / unit (push) Successful in 1m37s
CI / frontend (push) Successful in 3m36s
CI / mutation (push) Successful in 6m42s
CI / verify-stack (push) Failing after 11m26s
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
      (06c0444566ef7d) and subscriber side (142ed458af09b2).
- [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`** (0dd26a7b30fa66) — 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

192 lines
9.4 KiB
C#

using System.Net;
using System.Net.Http.Headers;
using System.Net.Http.Json;
using System.Text.Json.Serialization;
using Acl.Application;
namespace Acl.Infrastructure;
/// <summary>
/// The only code that talks to the Objecten API (ADR-0028). Writes the register record as an object
/// of the <c>RegisterRecord</c> objecttype registered in S-18c.
/// </summary>
public sealed class ObjectenGateway(HttpClient http, ObjectenOptions options, IClock clock) : IRegisterRecordGateway
{
// The objecttype URL + version are assigned by Objecttypen at seed time, so they are resolved by
// name on first use rather than pinned in config (same reasoning as ADR-0021).
// ponytail: memoised per instance only — the gateway is a transient typed client, so in practice
// that is one extra GET per approval against a neighbouring container. Lift it into a singleton
// cache (as CachedZaaktypeCatalog does for ZGW) if approvals ever get hot.
private Objecttype? objecttype;
public async Task UpsertAsync(RegisterRecord record, CancellationToken ct = default)
{
ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull(record);
var type = objecttype ??= await ResolveObjecttypeAsync(ct);
var existing = await FindExistingAsync(type.Url, record.Id, ct);
var data = new RecordDataDto(record.Id, record.Status, record.Reference);
// No existing object → create; otherwise PATCH, which appends a new record version to the same
// object. Either way the register ends up with exactly one object per registration (§8.6).
if (existing is null)
await SendAsync(HttpMethod.Post, new Uri(options.BaseUrl, "/api/v2/objects"),
new CreateObjectDto(type.Url.ToString(), NewRecord(type.Version, data)),
"Creating the register record", ct);
else
await SendAsync(HttpMethod.Patch, existing,
new PatchObjectDto(NewRecord(type.Version, data)),
"Updating the register record", ct);
}
public async Task<RegisterRecord?> GetAsync(Uri objectUrl, CancellationToken ct = default)
{
ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull(objectUrl);
// Fetched by the URL the notification carried, so no objecttype resolution and no search —
// unlike a write, which has to find the object for a registration id.
using var message = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Get, objectUrl);
message.Headers.Authorization = new AuthenticationHeaderValue("Token", options.Token);
message.Headers.Add("Accept-Crs", "EPSG:4326");
using var response = await http.SendAsync(message, ct);
// The object may be gone by the time a (possibly redelivered) notification is handled —
// there is simply nothing to project, which is not a failure (§8.6).
if (response.StatusCode == HttpStatusCode.NotFound)
return null;
await EnsureSuccessAsync(response, "Reading the register record", ct);
var body = await response.Content.ReadFromJsonAsync<ReadObjectDto>(ct)
?? throw new InvalidOperationException("Objecten returned an empty object response");
var data = body.Record?.Data;
return data is null ? null : new RegisterRecord(data.Id, data.Status, data.Reference);
}
private RecordDto NewRecord(int typeVersion, RecordDataDto data) =>
new(typeVersion, data, clock.Today.ToString("yyyy-MM-dd"));
/// <summary>The URL + latest published version of the configured objecttype, read from Objecttypen.</summary>
private async Task<Objecttype> ResolveObjecttypeAsync(CancellationToken ct)
{
var page = await GetAsync<ObjecttypePage>(
new Uri(options.ObjecttypenBaseUrl, "/api/v2/objecttypes"),
options.ObjecttypenToken, crs: false, "objecttypen", ct);
var match = (page.Results ?? []).FirstOrDefault(o => o.Name == options.ObjecttypeName)
?? throw new InvalidOperationException(
$"No objecttype '{options.ObjecttypeName}' registered in Objecttypen — is the RegisterRecord seed applied?");
// Write against the highest *published* version: a draft version's schema is still being
// shaped, and objects written against it would be validated by a moving target. The objecttype
// carries its versions as URLs, so each is fetched for its status (the collection response
// gives no status) — once per gateway instance, alongside the lookup above.
var latest = 0;
foreach (var versionUrl in match.Versions ?? [])
{
var version = await GetAsync<ObjecttypeVersionDto>(
new Uri(versionUrl), options.ObjecttypenToken, crs: false, "objecttype version", ct);
if (version.Status == "published" && version.Version > latest)
latest = version.Version;
}
if (latest == 0)
throw new InvalidOperationException($"Objecttype '{options.ObjecttypeName}' has no published version");
return new Objecttype(new Uri(match.Url), latest);
}
/// <summary>The URL of the object already holding this registration's record, or null if there is none.</summary>
private async Task<Uri?> FindExistingAsync(Uri objecttypeUrl, string id, CancellationToken ct)
{
var query = new Uri(options.BaseUrl,
"/api/v2/objects?type=" + Uri.EscapeDataString(objecttypeUrl.ToString()) +
"&data_attrs=id__exact__" + Uri.EscapeDataString(id));
var page = await GetAsync<ObjectPage>(query, options.Token, crs: true, "objects", ct);
var match = (page.Results ?? []).FirstOrDefault();
return match is null ? null : new Uri(match.Url);
}
private async Task<T> GetAsync<T>(Uri uri, string token, bool crs, string label, CancellationToken ct)
{
using var message = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Get, uri);
message.Headers.Authorization = new AuthenticationHeaderValue("Token", token);
if (crs)
message.Headers.Add("Accept-Crs", "EPSG:4326");
using var response = await http.SendAsync(message, ct);
await EnsureSuccessAsync(response, $"Querying {label}", ct);
return await response.Content.ReadFromJsonAsync<T>(ct)
?? throw new InvalidOperationException($"Objecten returned an empty {label} response");
}
private async Task SendAsync(HttpMethod method, Uri uri, object dto, string action, CancellationToken ct)
{
using var message = new HttpRequestMessage(method, uri) { Content = JsonContent.Create(dto) };
message.Headers.Authorization = new AuthenticationHeaderValue("Token", options.Token);
// The Objecten API is a geo API: it requires the CRS headers on reads and writes alike.
message.Headers.Add("Accept-Crs", "EPSG:4326");
message.Content.Headers.Add("Content-Crs", "EPSG:4326");
// As with OpenZaak, Objecten runs behind uwsgi, which rejects a chunked request body.
await message.Content.LoadIntoBufferAsync(ct);
using var response = await http.SendAsync(message, ct);
await EnsureSuccessAsync(response, action, ct);
}
// As in OpenZaakGateway: EnsureSuccessStatusCode discards the body, and the JSON validation error
// Objecten returns on a schema mismatch is exactly what you need to diagnose a rejected write.
private static async Task EnsureSuccessAsync(HttpResponseMessage response, string action, CancellationToken ct)
{
if (response.IsSuccessStatusCode)
return;
var body = await response.Content.ReadAsStringAsync(ct);
throw new HttpRequestException($"{action} failed: {(int)response.StatusCode} {response.ReasonPhrase}. {body}");
}
private sealed record Objecttype(Uri Url, int Version);
private sealed record ObjecttypePage(
[property: JsonPropertyName("results")] IReadOnlyList<ObjecttypeDto>? Results);
private sealed record ObjecttypeDto(
[property: JsonPropertyName("url")] string Url,
[property: JsonPropertyName("name")] string? Name,
[property: JsonPropertyName("versions")] IReadOnlyList<string>? Versions);
private sealed record ObjecttypeVersionDto(
[property: JsonPropertyName("version")] int Version,
[property: JsonPropertyName("status")] string? Status);
private sealed record ObjectPage(
[property: JsonPropertyName("results")] IReadOnlyList<ObjectDto>? Results);
private sealed record ObjectDto(
[property: JsonPropertyName("url")] string Url);
private sealed record ReadObjectDto(
[property: JsonPropertyName("record")] ReadRecordDto? Record);
private sealed record ReadRecordDto(
[property: JsonPropertyName("data")] RecordDataDto? Data);
private sealed record CreateObjectDto(
[property: JsonPropertyName("type")] string Type,
[property: JsonPropertyName("record")] RecordDto Record);
private sealed record PatchObjectDto(
[property: JsonPropertyName("record")] RecordDto Record);
private sealed record RecordDto(
[property: JsonPropertyName("typeVersion")] int TypeVersion,
[property: JsonPropertyName("data")] RecordDataDto Data,
[property: JsonPropertyName("startAt")] string StartAt);
private sealed record RecordDataDto(
[property: JsonPropertyName("id")] string Id,
[property: JsonPropertyName("status")] string Status,
[property: JsonPropertyName("reference")] string? Reference);
}