Joseph Doherty
61 lines
3.4 KiB
Markdown
61 lines
3.4 KiB
Markdown
# Integration call routing (`IntegrationCallRequest`) is dead on both ends
|
||
|
||
**Date:** 2026-07-22 · **Status:** OPEN (decision needed: wire or delete) · **Tracked:** Gitea
|
||
[#32](https://gitea.dohertylan.com/dohertj2/ScadaBridge/issues/32) (filed 2026-07-23) · **Severity:**
|
||
Low (no runtime impact — the path cannot be reached) · **Area:** Central–Site Communication
|
||
|
||
## What
|
||
|
||
"Pattern 4: Integration Routing" — `CommunicationService.RouteIntegrationCallAsync` →
|
||
`SiteEnvelope(IntegrationCallRequest)` → `SiteCommunicationActor` → an integration handler — is
|
||
plumbed end to end but connected at neither end.
|
||
|
||
- **No producer.** `RouteIntegrationCallAsync` (`CommunicationService.cs`, "Pattern 4") has **zero
|
||
callers** in `src/` or `tests/`. It is the only one of `CommunicationService`'s command methods
|
||
with none.
|
||
- **No handler.** `SiteCommunicationActor` forwards to `_integrationHandler` when one is
|
||
registered, but `RegisterLocalHandler(LocalHandlerType.Integration, …)` appears **only** in
|
||
`SiteCommunicationActorTests.cs`. `AkkaHostedService` registers the other three handler types
|
||
(`Artifacts`, `EventLog`, `ParkedMessages`) and never this one.
|
||
|
||
So if anything ever did call it, the site would answer
|
||
`IntegrationCallResponse(Success: false, Error: "Integration handler not available")`
|
||
(`SiteCommunicationActor.cs`, Pattern 4) — and the two tests that exercise the path both register
|
||
the handler themselves first, which is why the suite has never noticed.
|
||
|
||
Do not confuse this with the **Inbound API**'s routed-site-script path, which is live, tested, and
|
||
uses different messages entirely. This is a separate, unused routing pattern that predates it.
|
||
|
||
## Why it is recorded rather than fixed
|
||
|
||
Found during the recon for the ClusterClient→gRPC transport migration
|
||
([`docs/plans/2026-07-22-clusterclient-to-grpc-plan.md`](../plans/2026-07-22-clusterclient-to-grpc-plan.md),
|
||
T0.2), which had to enumerate every command crossing the site↔central boundary. Of the **29**
|
||
command types, this is the one that is excluded: **28 migrate to the gRPC contract.**
|
||
|
||
Porting it would mean designing a proto contract, a `oneof` slot and round-trip mapper tests for a
|
||
verb no caller can invoke and no site can service — and enshrining it on a wire format whose
|
||
evolution rules are additive-only, so an unused RPC slot is permanent. Deleting it during a
|
||
transport migration would mix an unrelated behavioural change into a change whose whole value is
|
||
that behaviour is identical. Hence: excluded from the contract, behaviour untouched, decision
|
||
deferred to its own change.
|
||
|
||
## Decision needed
|
||
|
||
Either:
|
||
|
||
1. **Delete** — remove `RouteIntegrationCallAsync`, the `IntegrationCallRequest`/`Response`
|
||
messages, the `SiteCommunicationActor` receive block, `LocalHandlerType.Integration`, and the
|
||
three tests that cover them. This is the default if no consumer is planned.
|
||
2. **Wire** — register a real integration handler on site nodes and give the method a caller. This
|
||
only makes sense if there is a requirement it serves; none is recorded in
|
||
`docs/requirements/`.
|
||
|
||
Whichever is chosen, do it **before Phase 4** of the migration, since Phase 4 deletes the Akka
|
||
transport underneath this path. If it is still dead at that point, option 1 is forced.
|
||
|
||
## Filing
|
||
|
||
To be filed as a Gitea issue on `dohertj2/scadabridge` by the repo owner — this note is the
|
||
in-repo record of the finding and of the migration exclusion it justifies.
|