MF-785 - Change CanAccess to CanAccessByKey

[nwneisen]

What does this do?

Change CanAccess code to use CanAccessByKey

Which issue(s) does this PR fix/relate to?

Resolves #785

List any changes that modify/break current functionality

Endpoint /channels/<channel id>/access was changed to /channels/<channel id>/access-by-key. This could cause issues if it was being access outside of the SDK. It didn't seem to be exposed.

Have you included tests for your changes?

No new tests were created. Current tests were verified to still be passing.

Did you document any new/modified functionality?

No, new functionality was not added and this endpoint is not documented.

Notes

[drasko]

@nwneisen great initiative.

However this change will probably impact Aedes and VerneMQ MQTT adapters, as they depend on protobuf (which was changed).

Can you please verify if this is the case, and do the necessary changes over there as well (at least for Aedes, and I can do Erlang stuff for VerneMQ later).

[dborovcanin]

@nwneisen great initiative.

However this change will probably impact Aedes and VerneMQ MQTT adapters, as they depend on protobuf (which was changed).

Can you please verify if this is the case, and do the necessary changes over there as well (at least for Aedes, and I can do Erlang stuff for VerneMQ later).

@nwneisen Also, please generate .pb.go files. We commit these files to simplify CI and to track proto files easily. That's also the reason CI is failing.

[drasko]

@dusanb94 these seem to be commited.

Also I double-checked that Verne does not use CanAccessByKey() (it uses only CanAccessByID(), which was the reason for introducing it and making these distinctions).

However, I think that Aedes calls need to be adjusted.

[drasko]

On double-checking PR Aedes code seems to be handled as well.

I have good impression about this PR ;).

[drasko]

LGTM

[drasko]

@nwneisen I tried updating your branch via GitHUb UI button (as you have maintainer approvals, and we would like to merge this PR). However, CI is falling - probably because wrong protoc version.

Can you try updating the branch manually to see if we can fix this issue?

Our CI script seems to use this version of protoc. We should either bump it, remove this check, or you must for now align with what CI does.

@dusanb94 can we take a look at bumping this protoc version, looks like 3.10 is actual one.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #894 into master will decrease coverage by 0.04%.
The diff coverage is 93.93%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #894      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   84.58%   84.54%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files          74       74              
  Lines        4879     4879              
==========================================
- Hits         4127     4125       -2     
- Misses        511      513       +2     
  Partials      241      241

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
things/redis/streams.go	90.47% <0%> (ø)	⬆️
things/api/auth/grpc/client.go	100% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
things/service.go	86.61% <100%> (-1.41%)	⬇️
things/api/auth/grpc/endpoint.go	100% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
ws/api/transport.go	87.5% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
things/api/auth/http/endpoint.go	100% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
things/api/auth/http/requests.go	100% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
readers/api/transport.go	87.01% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
things/api/auth/grpc/requests.go	66.66% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
things/api/auth/grpc/server.go	96.49% <100%> (ø)	⬆️
... and 2 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 1da48af...6fe26e6. Read the comment docs.

[nwneisen]

@drasko I checked my protoc version and I was indeed on 3.9.1. It looks like the build is now successful and I just needed to push with a signed commit.

[drasko]

LGTM

[manuio]

LGTM

[drasko]

Merged! Thanks @nwneisen!