not
94742a261f
## 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 onb30fa66, `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
29 lines
2.1 KiB
Gherkin
29 lines
2.1 KiB
Gherkin
# language: en
|
|
# Drives S-19b-2 (#153), re-sourcing S-06 (#7). The read projection is derived from the
|
|
# RegisterRecord in Objecten (ADR-0030), not from ZGW zaak events: the ACL records a registration
|
|
# in the register, Objecten notifies, and the Event Subscriber projects the record that
|
|
# notification points at. This scenario exercises the use case against in-memory stand-ins for the
|
|
# register, the projection store and the notification log; real Objecten → NRC → subscriber
|
|
# delivery is verified by the live-stack check (verify-projection, ADR-0007/0030).
|
|
Feature: Register-projectie bijwerken op een registerwijziging
|
|
Als openbaar register wil ik dat een registratie in de projectie verschijnt zodra zij
|
|
in het register is vastgelegd, zodat het register haar actuele status kan tonen.
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Een ingediende registratie levert een rij met status INGEDIEND
|
|
Given registration "11111111-1111-1111-1111-111111111111" is recorded in the register with status "INGEDIEND"
|
|
When the register notification is delivered to the event subscriber
|
|
Then the register projection contains a row for "11111111-1111-1111-1111-111111111111" with status "INGEDIEND"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Een goedgekeurde registratie werkt dezelfde rij bij
|
|
Given registration "33333333-3333-3333-3333-333333333333" is recorded in the register with status "INGEDIEND"
|
|
And the register notification is delivered to the event subscriber
|
|
When registration "33333333-3333-3333-3333-333333333333" is recorded in the register with status "INGESCHREVEN"
|
|
And the register notification is delivered to the event subscriber
|
|
Then the register projection contains a row for "33333333-3333-3333-3333-333333333333" with status "INGESCHREVEN"
|
|
|
|
Scenario: Dezelfde notificatie tweemaal levert geen duplicaat
|
|
Given registration "22222222-2222-2222-2222-222222222222" is recorded in the register with status "INGEDIEND"
|
|
When the register notification is delivered to the event subscriber
|
|
And the same register notification is delivered again
|
|
Then the register projection contains exactly one row for "22222222-2222-2222-2222-222222222222"
|