chore(ci): Support key-management in start-additional-kas action

[c-r33d]

Proposed Changes

1.) Add support for basic key management tests within the start-additional-kas github action

Checklist

• I have added or updated unit tests
• I have added or updated integration tests (if appropriate)
• I have added or updated documentation

Testing Instructions

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @c-r33d, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request enhances the start-additional-kas GitHub action by integrating support for key management configurations. The changes introduce new inputs to the action, allowing users to specify whether key management is enabled and to provide a root key. This enables more robust testing scenarios for KAS instances, particularly those requiring specific key management setups, by dynamically configuring the KAS service with these parameters.

Highlights

• New Key Management Inputs: Introduced key-management (boolean) and root-key (string) inputs to the start-additional-kas GitHub action, allowing for dynamic configuration of KAS key management settings.
• KAS Configuration Update: Modified the KAS configuration within the action to leverage the new key-management and root-key inputs, enabling the KAS instance to be started with specific key management settings.
• Preview Section for KAS Services: Adjusted the configuration path for ec_tdf_enabled and added new key management settings under a services.kas.preview section in the KAS configuration.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

---

CI pipeline flows, Keys are managed, safe and sound, Tests now run with ease.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request adds support for key management to the start-additional-kas GitHub action by introducing key-management and root-key inputs. The changes also correct the path for ec_tdf_enabled in the configuration. My review focuses on improving the robustness and consistency of the action. I've pointed out a potential runtime issue where enabling key management without providing a root key could cause failures, and suggested adding input validation. I also noted a couple of minor formatting inconsistencies.

[github-actions]

Benchmark results, click to expand

Benchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	1000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	176.047366ms

Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	1000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	100.203913ms

Benchmark Statistics

Name	№ Requests	Avg Duration	Min Duration	Max Duration

Bulk Benchmark Results

Metric	Value
Total Decrypts	100
Successful Decrypts	100
Failed Decrypts	0
Total Time	361.360774ms
Throughput	276.73 requests/second

TDF3 Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	38.783438657s
Average Latency	386.017171ms
Throughput	128.92 requests/second

NANOTDF Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	27.424103195s
Average Latency	273.019834ms
Throughput	182.32 requests/second

[github-actions]

X-Test Results

opentdfplatformVLFUJD.dockerbuild
✅ js-v0.4.34
cukes-report
✅ java-v0.4.34
bats-test-results
test-cases-mapping-report
✅ go-v0.4.34
✅ js-pull-2903
✅ java-pull-2903
✅ go-pull-2903

[github-actions]

Benchmark results, click to expand

Benchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	1000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	182.808351ms

Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:

Metric	Value
Approved Decision Requests	1000
Denied Decision Requests	0
Total Time	100.538377ms

Benchmark Statistics

Name	№ Requests	Avg Duration	Min Duration	Max Duration

Bulk Benchmark Results

Metric	Value
Total Decrypts	100
Successful Decrypts	100
Failed Decrypts	0
Total Time	367.388365ms
Throughput	272.19 requests/second

TDF3 Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	39.842209359s
Average Latency	396.564496ms
Throughput	125.50 requests/second

NANOTDF Benchmark Results:

Metric	Value
Total Requests	5000
Successful Requests	5000
Failed Requests	0
Concurrent Requests	50
Total Time	27.735840642s
Average Latency	276.261513ms
Throughput	180.27 requests/second

[github-actions]

X-Test Results

opentdfplatformEOM51A.dockerbuild
cukes-report
✅ java-v0.4.34
✅ js-v0.4.34
✅ go-v0.4.34
bats-test-results
test-cases-mapping-report
✅ js-pull-2903
✅ java-pull-2903
✅ go-pull-2903