[TRACE-X] 🌟🚀Access and Authentication for BPDM Lookup over EDC communication

[mkanal]

Overview

Explain the topic in 2 sentences

Currently the bpdm lookup is implemented by calling the BPDM API directly. To be compliant with the standard process it is crucial to build up the connection via EDC.

What's the benefit?

What are the Risks/Dependencies ?

• Nothing to report

Detailed explanation

Current implementation

Proposed improvements

Feature Team

Contributor

• Cofinity-X @rogocof
• Cofinity-X @mkanal

Committer

• @ds-jhartmann
• @ds-mwesener
• @ds-lcapellino

---

User Story

As user I want manufacturer name for an asset to have a clear name of the company to interact with so that to access the bpdm API over EDC and could interact with the BPDM API in a data sov. manner.

Links

• related to https://github.com/eclipse-tractusx/traceability-foss/issues/901
• related to https://github.com/eclipse-tractusx/traceability-foss/issues/902
• related to https://github.com/eclipse-tractusx/item-relationship-service/issues/568
• relates to https://github.com/eclipse-tractusx/traceability-foss/issues/902

Hints / Details

• The IRS no longer delivers BPN names within their jobResponse, which results in sentToName and createdByName attributes being null.
• We need to either ensure that the bpdmClient works correctly to retrieve the BPN names, or manage the BPN names ourselves.
• Investigate and decide the best approach: fixing the bpdmClient or implementing an alternative method to handle BPN names.
• Ensure backward compatibility with the current system.

NFR

[ ] Improving performance by using caching strategy for manufacturer information in the backend instead of lookup information on each asset

Acceptance Criterias

• [ ] Accessing new BPDM API using EDC
  • [ ] EDC is discovered over the discovering flow using BPNL to EDC lookup in EDCDiscoveryService
  • [ ] Required Changes to new BPDM API are implemented
  • [ ] New BDPM API flow is implemented
  • [ ] Adding manufacturer name to each asset, providing a BPNL
  • [ ] GIVEN asset contains valid BPNL WHEN BPDM lookup does not provide result (manufacturer name) THEN "Unknown" label is set.
  • [ ] GIVEN asset contains valid BPNL WHEN BPDM lookup error occurs, THEN "Undefined" label is set.
  • [ ] API flow and api access is covered with e2e cucumber tests
  • [ ] API flow is documented in arc42 docu
  • [ ] Create BPDM Lookup via EDC Mock to support int testing on DEV environment
  • [ ] The sentToName and createdByName attributes are correctly populated for notifications.
  • [ ] Comprehensive unit and integration tests are created to validate the solution.

---

Test Cases

Test Case 1

Steps

1. Do something
2. Click something
3. Add something

Expected Result

1. Expectation
2. Expectation
3. Expectation

Architectural Relevance

The following items are ensured (answer: yes) after this issue is implemented:

• [ ] This feature aligns with our current architectural guidelines
  • Data Sovereignty: All data sharing activities across company boundaries follow the Catena-X Regulatory Framework, in particular the Data Exchange Governance, and the Dataspace Protocol via a compliant Connector (like the tractusx-edc or similar, see Connector KIT)
  • [ ] CX-0010 Business Partner Number
  • [ ] CX-0013 Identity of Member Companies
  • [ ] CX-0018 Data Space Connectivity (EDC)
  • [ ] CX-0049 DID Document Schema
  • [ ] CX-0050 Framework Agreement Credential
  • [ ] CX-0149 Verified Company Identity
  • Interoperability: Digital Twins are used (compliant to the Digital Twin KIT and the Industry Core KIT)
  • [ ] CX-0001 EDC Discovery API
  • [ ] CX-0002 Digital Twins in Catena-X
  • [ ] CX-0018 Data Space Connectivity (EDC)
  • Data Format:
  • [ ] The data model is based on a published Semantic Model
• [ ] The impact on the overall system architecture has been assessed. The Feature does not require changes to the architecture or any existing standard? Please have a look here on the overarching architecture
• [ ] Potential risks or conflicts with existing architecture has been assessed

Justification: (Fill this out, if at least one of the checkboxes above cannot be ticked. Contact the Architecture Management Committee to get an approval for the justification)

Additional information

• [x] I am aware that my request may not be developed if no developer can be found for it. I'll try to contribute a developer (bring your own developer)

[stephanbcbauer]

Some hints from Release Management (@ther3sa) and Tractus-X Project Lead (@stephanbcbauer)

• Status currently in Backlog -> Since for Backlog some requirements are missing ... please update them
• Please add missing sections from the feature template, or fill them out
• Please add assignee (overall responsible person who drives the feature)