[#2526] Allow for additional ZGW service backends to be configured #1240
Conversation
swrichards
force-pushed
the
tasks/2526-additional-zgw-service-config
branch
from
caca0df
to
0fdb750
Compare
|
|
||
| dependencies = [ | ||
| ("zgw_consumers", "0019_alter_service_uuid"), | ||
| ("openzaak", "0047_delete_statustranslation"), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note we depend on 0047 rather than 0048 on account of #1228
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #1240 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 95.22% 95.20% -0.03%
===========================================
Files 974 978 +4
Lines 35471 35595 +124
===========================================
+ Hits 33778 33888 +110
- Misses 1693 1707 +14 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
swrichards
force-pushed
the
tasks/2526-additional-zgw-service-config
branch
3 times, most recently
from
4adab74
to
1b32755
Compare
swrichards
force-pushed
the
tasks/2526-additional-zgw-service-config
branch
from
1b32755
to
715bc06
Compare
swrichards
force-pushed
the
tasks/2526-additional-zgw-service-config
branch
from
715bc06
to
bd2e67b
Compare
|
Seems okay, also for @pi-sigma to review first after his holiday |
|
@stevenbal review vanuit jouw kant zou wenselijk zijn hiervoor, dit hadden we volgens mij in april samen met Bart al voorbesproken maar lag even stil |
| open_zaak_config = models.ForeignKey( | ||
| "openzaak.OpenZaakConfig", on_delete=models.PROTECT, related_name="api_groups" | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OpenZaakConfig is a SingletonModel and there will only be one instance of it, so I don't think we need a ForeignKey to it on this model and can just use .get_solo if we need it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The FK approach feels simpler and cheaper to me: it's more declarative and avoids custom logic on both sides of the relation (.get_solo and ZGWApiGroupConfig.objects.all()) and in the admin (which would be needed because we would lack a declared through-field). But if you feel strongly the other way I am happy to make the change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm yeah that's true, I don't feel too strongly about either way, so it's fine
src/open_inwoner/openzaak/migrations/0050_migrate_zgw_root_fields_to_multi_backend.py
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/open_inwoner/openzaak/migrations/0050_migrate_zgw_root_fields_to_multi_backend.py
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Useful comments @stevenbal, thanks. Just one open question left in #1240 (comment). |
swrichards
force-pushed
the
tasks/2526-additional-zgw-service-config
branch
from
bd2e67b
to
e41c456
Compare
This is a first step towards allowing multiple ZGW backends throughout the platform. To maintain backwards compatibility with the current datamodel, we proxy the current service config fields to the new ZGWApiGroupConfig model as we work our way towards making all ZGW client invocations multi-backend aware.
swrichards
force-pushed
the
tasks/2526-additional-zgw-service-config
branch
from
e41c456
to
dc065b0
Compare
This is a first step towards allowing multiple ZGW backends throughout the platform. To maintain backwards compatibility with the current datamodel, we proxy the current service config fields to the new ZGWApiGroupConfig model as we work our way towards making all ZGW client invocations multi-backend aware.