Files
register-referentie/tests/acceptance/Support/InMemoryZaakGateway.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

73 lines
3.4 KiB
C#

using Acl.Application;
namespace Acceptance.Support;
/// <summary>An in-memory stand-in for the OpenZaak Zaken API. It captures the
/// fully default-filled <see cref="ZaakRequest"/> the ACL builds and returns a
/// fixed zaak URL, so the acceptance scenario can verify the use case without a
/// running OpenZaak (real-OpenZaak verification is a separate slice).</summary>
public sealed class InMemoryZaakGateway : IZaakGateway
{
public static readonly Uri CreatedZaakUrl = new("http://openzaak/zaken/api/v1/zaken/created-123");
public ZaakRequest? Captured { get; private set; }
public (Uri Zaak, Uri Zaaktype, DateOnly Datum)? Approved { get; private set; }
public (Uri Zaak, Uri Zaaktype, DateOnly Datum)? Cancelled { get; private set; }
// The URLs the catalogus resolves the configured identificatie/omschrijving to (S-27); settable so
// a scenario can pin the zaaktype the ACL should default-fill.
public Uri ResolvedZaaktypeUrl { get; set; } = new("http://openzaak/catalogi/api/v1/zaaktypen/big");
public Uri ResolvedInformatieobjecttypeUrl { get; set; } = new("http://openzaak/catalogi/api/v1/informatieobjecttypen/dip");
public Task<Uri> OpenZaakAsync(ZaakRequest request, CancellationToken ct = default)
{
Captured = request;
return Task.FromResult(CreatedZaakUrl);
}
public Task SetZaakToEindstatusAsync(Uri zaakUrl, Uri zaaktypeUrl, DateOnly datumStatusGezet, CancellationToken ct = default)
{
Approved = (zaakUrl, zaaktypeUrl, datumStatusGezet);
return Task.CompletedTask;
}
public Task SetZaakToCancellationStatusAsync(Uri zaakUrl, Uri zaaktypeUrl, DateOnly datumStatusGezet, CancellationToken ct = default)
{
Cancelled = (zaakUrl, zaaktypeUrl, datumStatusGezet);
return Task.CompletedTask;
}
public Task<string> GetZaakIdentificatieAsync(Uri zaakUrl, CancellationToken ct = default)
=> Task.FromResult("ACC-REF-1");
public Task<Uri> StoreDocumentAsync(DocumentRequest request, CancellationToken ct = default)
=> Task.FromResult(new Uri("http://openzaak/documenten/api/v1/enkelvoudiginformatieobjecten/acc-doc"));
public Task<Uri> ResolveZaaktypeUrlAsync(string identificatie, CancellationToken ct = default)
=> Task.FromResult(ResolvedZaaktypeUrl);
public Task<Uri> ResolveInformatieobjecttypeUrlAsync(string omschrijving, CancellationToken ct = default)
=> Task.FromResult(ResolvedInformatieobjecttypeUrl);
public Task<IReadOnlyList<ZaaktypeSummary>> ListZaaktypenAsync(CancellationToken ct = default)
=> Task.FromResult<IReadOnlyList<ZaaktypeSummary>>(
[new ZaaktypeSummary("BIG-REGISTRATIE", "BIG-registratie", ResolvedZaaktypeUrl)]);
}
/// <summary>An in-memory stand-in for the Objecten API (S-19a): records the register records the ACL
/// writes on approval, so a scenario can assert on them without a running Objecten.</summary>
public sealed class InMemoryRegisterRecordGateway : IRegisterRecordGateway
{
public List<RegisterRecord> Upserted { get; } = [];
public Task UpsertAsync(RegisterRecord record, CancellationToken ct = default)
{
Upserted.Add(record);
return Task.CompletedTask;
}
/// <summary>The most recently written record — scenarios never read one back by object URL.</summary>
public Task<RegisterRecord?> GetAsync(Uri objectUrl, CancellationToken ct = default)
=> Task.FromResult(Upserted.Count == 0 ? null : Upserted[^1]);
}