Mandatory fields at Gate and Pool are not in sync

[StWeisshaar]

Current Behavior

When posting results to the BPDM Orchestator with a confidenceCriteria object(lastConfidenceCheckAt and nextConfidenceCheckAt) equal to NULL - the task still successfully passes through the BPDM Orchestrator and reaches PoolSync Success. Since these fields are mandatory at the BPDM Gate the task is running into an SharingProcessError.

This is not reproducible using the Cleaning Service Dummy, since the dummy service populates all confidence criteria fields by default.

Thanks to @bhautik-sakhiya for finding this issue!

Expected Behavior

The mandatory fields should align between BPDM Orchestrator and BPDM Gate. Tasks with missing mandatory fields are expected to fail at the BPDM Orchestrator. Missing mandatory fields are specified within the error message.

Steps To Reproduce

1. Create a new task
2. Post step results for CleanAndSync without lastConfidenceCheckAt and nextConfidenceCheckAt
3. Check the sharing state type for the created task

[SujitMBRDI]

Hello @arjmohanty,

We tried to reproduce the issue and realised that this behaviour is as expected.
At present, the Orchestrator is not designed to provide errors immediately. However, if there is a requirement to change the Orchestrator’s behaviour, we would need to revise the data model accordingly. Additionally, we would need to strategise carefully, as there are several other attributes in the Orchestrator that are nullable but are defined as non-nullable in the Gate and Pool components.
Cc: @nicoprow

[arjmohanty]

Hello @SujitMBRDI
Thank you for your comments regarding the Orchestrator’s current behavior and its design. This sync serves to confirm our alignment. Since revising the data model is required, we will proceed with initiating further discussions during the upcoming sprints.
We appreciate your input and will keep you updated on the progress.

@jupakajo

[maximilianong]

@jupakajo we would need a final statement from your side - for us in open source it works as expected. That's why we moved it again to backlog for the clarification.