UID-184 Add okapi interface to dependencies.

[MikeTaylor]

We have long depended on this.

Fixes UID-184.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

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

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[zburke]

LGTM. Please include UID-184 at the start of the commit subject; it makes parsing the commit log much easier and is especially useful for release scripts that rely on finding Jira slugs here in order to automatically update Jira's "fix version" field when releases are published from GitHub.

[MikeTaylor]

LGTM. Please include UID-184 at the start of the commit subject; it makes parsing the commit log much easier and is especially useful for release scripts that rely on finding Jira slugs here in order to automatically update Jira's "fix version" field when releases are published from GitHub.

Sure thing.

[adamdickmeiss]

Guys. You are too quick. If en Eureka mode, fine. But okapi does NOT offer the okapi interface (not yet). See folio-org/okapi#1370

[MikeTaylor]

Yet https://folio-snapshot.dev.folio.org/settings/developer/okapi-console?tab=interfaces reports that the okapi interface is provided by okapi-6.2.0-SNAPSHOT.

[adamdickmeiss]

Yet https://folio-snapshot.dev.folio.org/settings/developer/okapi-console?tab=interfaces reports that the okapi interface is provided by okapi-6.2.0-SNAPSHOT.

It was provided as a special interfaceType: system which was NOT considered in dependency resolution, in essence not provided. As you can see there are TWO modules apparently offering the same interface. There should only be one of them (facade or okapi itself). Do you know the call the developer UI is using to show the interfaces ?

[MikeTaylor]

It makes two calls:

• https://folio-snapshot-okapi.dev.folio.org/_/proxy/tenants/diku/interfaces
• https://folio-snapshot-okapi.dev.folio.org/_/proxy/modules?latest=1&full=true

The former only gives interface names and versions, so that can't be how it's associating the interface with Okapi. But for what it's worth, it's the very last interface (of 376) included in the response.

Must be something in the much bigger response to the latter.

[adamdickmeiss]

It makes sense the 2nd call shows all interfaces, regardless of type.

[MikeTaylor]

So will be OK for this dependency to be included? Or will Okapi, when trying to enable ui-developer, see the okapi dependency and say "I've never heard of this Okapi thing, better reject the module"?

[adamdickmeiss]

So will be OK for this dependency to be included? Or will Okapi, when trying to enable ui-developer, see the okapi dependency and say "I've never heard of this Okapi thing, better reject the module"?

If operated by okapi it will never fail due to missing interface (okapi module provides okapi interface).

However, if there is another module that also offers an okapi interface , it will fail . And the admin will have to choose by explicitly telling what to enable (okapi or the other).