In-Memory Claim Management

[amanda-ariyaratne]

Proposed changes in this pull request

• This PR brings the in-memory implementation for default dialects and claims.
• The default dialect URIs and claim URIs cannot be changed but other metadata can be updated.
• The changes done on the default data will be saved in the database. At runtime, the output will be resolved based on both the data in memory and the database.

Class Diagram

Note: When adding updates to the database, parent entities need to be added as pre-requisites. This is intentionally handled in a non-transactional manner since it will not cause any data inconsistencies or produce stale data.
eg: When adding a claim, its dialect need to be added to the database if it is not already present. This is not handled as a single transaction.

When should this PR be merged

[Please describe any preconditions that need to be addressed before we
can merge this pull request.]

Follow up actions

[List any possible follow-up actions here; for instance, testing data
migrations, software that we need to install on staging and production
environments.]

Checklist (for reviewing)

General

• Is this PR explained thoroughly? All code changes must be accounted for in the PR description.
• Is the PR labeled correctly?

Functionality

• Are all requirements met? Compare implemented functionality with the requirements specification.
• Does the UI work as expected? There should be no Javascript errors in the console; all resources should load. There should be no unexpected errors. Deliberately try to break the feature to find out if there are corner cases that are not handled.

Code

• Do you fully understand the introduced changes to the code? If not ask for clarification, it might uncover ways to solve a problem in a more elegant and efficient way.
• Does the PR introduce any inefficient database requests? Use the debug server to check for duplicate requests.
• Are all necessary strings marked for translation? All strings that are exposed to users via the UI must be marked for translation.

Tests

• Are there sufficient test cases? Ensure that all components are tested individually; models, forms, and serializers should be tested in isolation even if a test for a view covers these components.
• If this is a bug fix, are tests for the issue in place? There must be a test case for the bug to ensure the issue won’t regress. Make sure that the tests break without the new code to fix the issue.
• If this is a new feature or a significant change to an existing feature? has the manual testing spreadsheet been updated with instructions for manual testing?

Security

• Confirm this PR doesn't commit any keys, passwords, tokens, usernames, or other secrets.
• Are all UI and API inputs run through forms or serializers?
• Are all external inputs validated and sanitized appropriately?
• Does all branching logic have a default case?
• Does this solution handle outliers and edge cases gracefully?
• Are all external communications secured and restricted to SSL?

Documentation

• Are changes to the UI documented in the platform docs? If this PR introduces new platform site functionality or changes existing ones, the changes should be documented.
• Are changes to the API documented in the API docs? If this PR introduces new API functionality or changes existing ones, the changes must be documented.
• Are reusable components documented? If this PR introduces components that are relevant to other developers (for instance a mixin for a view or a generic form) they should be documented in the Wiki.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 84.91736% with 73 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 41.36%. Comparing base (9800fe8) to head (d657a5e).
Report is 58 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...laim/metadata/mgt/UnifiedClaimMetadataManager.java	88.64%	12 Missing and 9 partials ⚠️
.../claim/metadata/mgt/DefaultClaimMetadataStore.java	0.00%	17 Missing ⚠️
...tadata/mgt/ClaimMetadataManagementServiceImpl.java	74.60%	12 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
...ty/claim/metadata/mgt/util/ClaimMetadataUtils.java	75.00%	6 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
...identity/claim/metadata/mgt/dao/LocalClaimDAO.java	80.95%	3 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...etadata/mgt/SystemDefaultClaimMetadataManager.java	97.33%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...rbon/identity/claim/metadata/mgt/dao/ClaimDAO.java	88.23%	2 Missing ⚠️
...laim/metadata/mgt/DBBasedClaimMetadataManager.java	98.30%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #6007      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     40.54%   41.36%   +0.81%     
- Complexity    14465    14895     +430     
============================================
  Files          1762     1768       +6     
  Lines        118284   121016    +2732     
  Branches      20454    21451     +997     
============================================
+ Hits          47960    50058    +2098     
- Misses        63011    63548     +537     
- Partials       7313     7410      +97     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unit	25.39% <84.91%> (+0.52%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[jenkins-is-staging]

PR builder started
Link: https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/11320953119

[jenkins-is-staging]

PR builder completed
Link: https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/11320953119
Status: failure

[jenkins-is-staging]

PR builder started
Link: https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/11359610537

[jenkins-is-staging]

PR builder completed
Link: https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/11359610537
Status: failure

[nilasini]

Can you please add sample API requests and responses before and after your fix?

[nilasini]

Did we consideer store procedure based DAO mentioned in [1]. Seems we need to deprecate it as we are having in memory concept, this[1] may not be needed anymore. Please verify and do the needful
[1] https://github.com/wso2/carbon-identity-framework/pull/3717/files
[2] wso2/product-is#12535

[amanda-ariyaratne]

Any reason to change this error code and error message. Can't we keep the existing one?

@nilasini No we can keep the existing one. I restored it in the code and updated the original comment.

[amanda-ariyaratne]

Can you please create a git issue with the detail to deprecate this.

Created wso2/product-is#21626

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
59 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.6% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud