[CONTRACT][DATA_SOV] Display of contracts in the Contract View that were concluded during the exchange of notifications via the EDC

[mkanal]

As an admin user responsible for compliance,
I want to have view contracts of notification exchanged via the EDC in the Contract View,
so that I am able to view the contracts and policies, the notification were exchanged.

Link

• relates to [CONTRACT][DATA_SOV] Display of contracts of not successful data consumption (tombstones) #986

Hints / Details

Acceptance Criteria

• Contracts for notification exchanged over EDC are available in ContractView
• User is able to devide/filter between contracts of notification exchange, contracts of aas shells consumption and contracts of submodel consumption (tabs are suitable as well for parts/notifications/tombstones)
• [Click here] Contract of successful notification exchange as well as unsuccessful exchange of notifications are displayed. The user can distinguish between successful and unsuccessful notification exchange
• In case user selects a notification contract, I can view the associated notification
• User could investigate contract when selecting a notification which was already exchanges

NFR

• The functionality should be responsive and performant, even with a large number of contracts. 10.000 +

Out of Scope

[ds-mwesener]

Frontend Tasks:

1. Add column: contractType
2. Add 3 buttons like in parts table to quick filter for contractType -> same logic as in partsTable
   Per button this filter:
   Either: "contractType,EQUAL,ASSET_AS_BUILT,AND"
   Or: "contractType,EQUAL,ASSET_AS_PLANNED,AND"
   Or: "contractType,EQUAL,NOTIFICATION,AND"
3. Change button from contractTable -> redirect with contractAgreementId to parts AND redirect with contractAgreementId to Notifications
4. From frontend call notifications filtered by contractAgreementId -> extract the notification
5. Open the detail view of the notification

Derive story for having consistency on assets redirecting to the parts detail view instead of the parts table component (as it is right now)

[ds-mwesener]

Hi @mkanal / @ds-crehm regarding the following AC:

Contract of successful notification exchange as well as unsuccessful exchange of notifications are displayed. The user can distinguish between successful and unsuccessful notification exchange

A contract can only be shown if it was successful negotiated. Otherwise we do not have any information about an agreement or an contract because it does not exist within the edc or other sources.

There are some technical cases where a contract does a transition into a TERMINATED state - which is actually an ERROR state. Examples can be server is not available etc. We will have that information in the STATE field within our contract table.

Therefore we cannot implement tombstones for contracts.

[ds-mwesener]

Backend part has been implemented and merged. @ds-mmaul will take over for frontend adjustments.

[mkanal]

Hi @ds-mwesener ,
Unsuccessful in this case is mentioned by missing or missing policy constraints, In this case the negotiation should be shown including the policy. So user has the opportunity to create the policy for the BPN to have future data exchange based on the policy.

[ds-mwesener]

Hi @ds-mwesener , Unsuccessful in this case is mentioned by missing or missing policy constraints, In this case the negotiation should be shown including the policy. So user has the opportunity to create the policy for the BPN to have future data exchange based on the policy.

Hi @mkanal understood. To solve this issue we could show the information that the policy did not match on the part itself.

Scenario: User tries to fetch data via edc with wrong policy included

<!--
Sequence Diagram:

1) Trace-X Frontend requests sync part from Trace-X Backend.
2) Trace-X Backend initiates a job via IRS.
3) IRS getsCatalog from the EDC.
4) EDC returns CatalogOffers including policies.
5) IRS tries to negotiate a contract for the offer.
6) EDC returns error and does not return a contract.
   - Therefore, there is no access to any contract-related info.
7) IRS returns a tombstone with information that the policy did not match and therefore the negotiation was cancelled.
   - Tombstone does not contain information about any contract, because as mentioned in step 6) there is no contract.
8) Trace-X Backend shows policy violation within the Trace-X Frontend.

Diagram:

   +--------------------+             +--------------------+             +------------+             +----------------+
   |  Trace-X Frontend  |             |  Trace-X Backend   |             |     IRS    |             |      EDC       |
   +--------------------+             +--------------------+             +------------+             +----------------+
            |                            |                            |                            |
            |   1) syncPart()            |                            |                            |
            |--------------------------->|                            |                            |
            |                            |   2) initiateJob()         |                            |
            |                            |--------------------------->|                            |
            |                            |                            |   3) getCatalog()          |
            |                            |                            |--------------------------->|
            |                            |                            |                            |
            |                            |                            |   4) CatalogOffers         |
            |                            |                            |<---------------------------|
            |                            |                            |                            |
            |                            |                            |   5) negotiateContract()   |
            |                            |                            |--------------------------->|
            |                            |                            |                            |
            |                            |                            |   6) Error: No contract    |
            |                            |                            |<---------------------------|
            |                            |                            |                            |
            |                            |   7) return tombstone      |                            |
            |                            |<---------------------------|                            |
            |   8) Show policy violation |                            |                            |
            |<---------------------------|                            |                            |
            |                            |                            |                            |
            +----------------------------+                            +----------------------------+
                                     Policy of part does not match application policy and EDC policy
 
-->

[ds-mwesener]

Hi @mkanal here the notification flow for the discussion:

Scenario: User tries to send notification via edc with wrong policy included

<!--
Sequence Diagram:

1) Trace-X Frontend sends a notification via Trace-X Backend.
2) Trace-X Backend getsCatalog from the EDC.
3) EDC returns CatalogOffers including policies.
4) Trace-X Backend tries to negotiate a contract for the offer.
5) EDC returns error and does not return a contract.
   - Therefore, there is no access to any contract-related info.
6) Trace-X Backend shows invalid policy on the notification with information that the policy did not match and therefore the negotiation was cancelled.
   - The notification does not contain information about any contract, because as mentioned in step 5) there is no contract.

Diagram:

   +--------------------+             +--------------------+             +----------------+
   |  Trace-X Frontend  |             |  Trace-X Backend   |             |      EDC       |
   +--------------------+             +--------------------+             +----------------+
            |                            |                            |
            |  1) sendNotification       |                            |
            |--------------------------->|                            |
            |                            |   2) getCatalog()          |
            |                            |--------------------------->|
            |                            |                            |
            |                            |   3) CatalogOffers         |
            |                            |<---------------------------|
            |                            |                            |
            |                            |   4) negotiateContract()   |
            |                            |--------------------------->|
            |                            |                            |
            |                            |   5) Error: No contract    |
            |                            |<---------------------------|
            |                            |                            |
            |  6) show invalid policy    |                            |
            |<---------------------------|                            |
            |                            |                            |
            +----------------------------+                            +----------------------------+
                                     Policy of notification contract does not match application policy and EDC policy

-->

[ds-mwesener]

Decision in parking lot:
Instead of create a tombstone in the contracts table.
We need to see the policy and the bpn within the error message if it comes to an error in regards of policy mismatch.

The messages will be implemented as following examples:

• Policies default-policy, default-policy1, default-policy2 did not match with policy default-policy from BPNL00000003CNKC
• Policy default-policy, default-policy1, default-policy2 did not match with policy abc from BPNL00000003CNKC
• Policy abc from BPNL00000003CNKC has expired.

Since our policies are a list of accepted policies and the policy of the catalog is only one because we are following the findFirstContractOffer approach the messages should be appropriate.

Since the messages will be added in: #1041 we can test and close this issue after verification @ds-crehm

[ds-mmaul]

Frontend Tasks:

1. Add column: contractType
2. Add 3 buttons like in parts table to quick filter for contractType -> same logic as in partsTable
   Per button this filter:
   Either: "contractType,EQUAL,ASSET_AS_BUILT,AND"
   Or: "contractType,EQUAL,ASSET_AS_PLANNED,AND"
   Or: "contractType,EQUAL,NOTIFICATION,AND"
3. Change button from contractTable -> redirect with contractAgreementId to parts AND redirect with contractAgreementId to Notifications
4. From frontend call notifications filtered by contractAgreementId -> extract the notification
5. Open the detail view of the notification

Derive story for having consistency on assets redirecting to the parts detail view instead of the parts table component (as it is right now)

1. Column added
2. As discussed, there are two buttons "Parts" and "Notifications" without the separation of asBuilt or asPlanned parts.
3. implemented dependent on contract type (view part / view notification)
4. implemented
5. implemented

--> Also implemented for parts, no new Issue needed. With the merge of #1127 the changes take effect on e2e.

[ds-lcapellino]

We found out, that we have no access to the policy ID in the EDC dependencies.
Changes to error messages:

• Policies default-policy, default-policy1, default-policy2 did not match with policy from BPNL00000003CNKC.
• Policy from BPNL00000003CNKC has expired.

[ds-crehm]

Tested on E2E:

Why is it called quality incidents? I would have expected it to be called quality notifications.
In German it is correct-> Qualitätsthemen - like the tab in the navigation.

Also, the end date is shown as 1970-01-01 00:00 even though the contract does not have an end date:

-> Created a bug ticket for this: #1151

[ds-crehm]

E2E: Naming of quality notification contracts is fixed now. There is currently another issue with notifications, which will be addressed in #639 - right now the link to the notifications doesn't work always. Since this was already tested before and there were no changes done related to this, this issue can be ignored here and will be examined in the linked ticket instead.

Ready for review.

[mkanal]

LGFM PO acceptance in behalf of @jzbmw