Added TSQ manager and its IVT program

[Anuprakash-Moothedath]

Added TSQ manager and its IVT under galasa-managers-cicsts-parent folder. TSQ manager implements the interface ITsqHandler with following methods:

1. setQName() - to set the TSQ name
2. getQName() - to get the TSQ name
3. readQ() - to read the TSQ with name set using setQName() method
4. writeQ() - to write to TSQ with name set using setQName() method
5. deleteQ() - to delete the TSQ with name set using setQName() method
6. makeRecoverable() - to make the TSQ recoverable

The ITsqHandler instance can be created using the following code snippet:

@CicsRegion()
public ICicsRegion cicsRegion;
...
ITsqHandler tsq = cicsRegion.tsq();

The documentation on how to use TSQ manager is present in - galasa-managers-parent/galasa-managers-cicsts-parent/dev.galasa.cicsts.tsq.manager/tsq_manager_codesnippet.md.

The IVT for TSQ manager is present in - galasa-managers-parent/galasa-managers-cicsts-parent/dev.galasa.cicsts.tsq.manager.ivt.

[galasa-team]

Automatic triggering of the build is cancelled as user is not a member of the approved groups. Please ask an admin to review this PR and create a comment on the PR stating 'Approved for building'

[hobbit1983]

@techcobweb @Anuprakash-Moothedath adding myself as a reviewer

[techcobweb]

On a more general note, I would like to see some unit tests added to make sure that this code does what you think it should be doing in the future. That will help with maintaining it.
Ideally without using mockito/powermock, but just using simple interface injection.

You could mock the Ceci manager and make sure that it's passing the right information...etc.

[techcobweb]

some initial comments from me.

[hobbit1983]

Love the contribution, but I think we need to make some changes here to stick to the conventions, which I agree, are not really codified anywhere

1. You are using the convention of allowing for TSQProviders to change the implementation of the TSQ interactions in a way similar to the CEMT and CEDA managers. However since there is only the 1 way to interact with a TSQ (through CECI) I don't think this is particularly necessary.
2. Providing the TSQHelper object (which is a bit of a factory object) is a level of abstraction that is a bit confusing as it is representing a set of TSQ on a CICS region. Calling setName and then write or read is confusing, which TSQ does this object currently represent
3. Would it be clearer to support APIs such as writeQueue("queueName","data") within either the factory or directly within the CICSRegion object?

What is the use case for needing to set recoverable? I feel this would be clearer in the test creating a TSModel as this has an impact across the CICS region

[hobbit1983]

@techcobweb can you review if these are correct?

[techcobweb]

• BOM should be true if you want it included by tests.
• I don't see why you wouldn't want it in javadoc
• I don't see why you wouldn't want it to participate in code coverage analysis.

[Anuprakash-Moothedath]

Hi @techcobweb , This was copied from build.gradle in dev.galasa.cicsts.ceda.manager.ivt. Also I was referring to other build.gradle files under IVTs for CEMT manger and CECI manager. There also I can find similar entries. Could you please advise if I need to follow that or set all these options as true?

[Mark-J-Lawrence]

On a more general note, I would like to see some unit tests added to make sure that this code does what you think it should be doing in the future. That will help with maintaining it. Ideally without using mockito/powermock, but just using simple interface injection.

You could mock the Ceci manager and make sure that it's passing the right information...etc.

+1 to this....see the SDV manager tests on how to do this https://github.com/galasa-dev/managers/tree/main/galasa-managers-parent/galasa-managers-testingtools-parent/dev.galasa.sdv.manager/src/test/java/dev/galasa/sdv/internal

[galasa-team]

Automatic triggering of the build is cancelled as user is not a member of the approved groups. Please ask an admin to review this PR and create a comment on the PR stating 'Approved for building'

[galasa-team]

Automatic triggering of the build is cancelled as user is not a member of the approved groups. Please ask an admin to review this PR and create a comment on the PR stating 'Approved for building'

[Anuprakash-Moothedath]

Hi @hobbit1983 , @techcobweb and @Mark-J-Lawrence , I have made the changes to have an ITsqFactory and create ITsq object by injecting the queue name. Please find the documentation of the changes here. Please have a look into the changes and let me know your comments.

ITsqFactory has the following methods:

- public ITsq createQueue(@NotNull String queueName, @NotNull boolean recoverable) throws TsqException;
- public ITsq createQueue(@NotNull String queueName) throws TsqException;   

ITsq has the following methods:

- public boolean exists() throws TsqException;   // Check the existence of a TSQ. 
- public boolean isRecoverable() throws TsqException; // Check if a TSQ is recoverable. 
- public String readQueue(@NotNull int item) throws TsqException;
- public String readQueueNext() throws TsqException;
- public void writeQueue(@NotNull String data) throws TsqException;
- public void deleteQueue() throws TsqException;

Please refer TsqManagerIVT.java to see how this can be used.

[galasa-team]

Automatic triggering of the build is cancelled as user is not a member of the approved groups. Please ask an admin to review this PR and create a comment on the PR stating 'Approved for building'

[techcobweb]

I prefer ITSQFactory or TSQFactory. 'I' Prefix is optional, but has been used pretty consistently in Galasa, but I'm personally not wedded to it. Given that the implementation is internal to the bundle and non-reachable, I think that should be TSQFactoryImpl or similar ?

[Anuprakash-Moothedath]

Hi @techcobweb , I can find that all the interfaces have name starting with 'I' and the implementation of ITsqFactory.java is named as TsqFactoryImpl.java. I thought this is the naming convention followed in Galasa. Please advise if I need to change this or keep it similar to the existing file names in Galasa?

[techcobweb]

I think we need a ModelFactory where you can create an ICicsModel or something similar.
eg:

interface ICicsModelFactory {
  public IModel createModel(String namePrefix, boolean isRecoverable, boolean isShared...etc.)
  public IModel getExistingModel(String namePrefix);
}

// Im not sure models are mutable, but..
interface IModel {
  public boolean isRecoverable();
  public void setRecoverable(boolean isRecoverable);
  ... similar for shared.
}

Then in this ITsqFactory interface, we can support:

/** For those queues which don't want or need a model */
public ITsq createQueue(@NotNull String queueName);

And we could also add
public ITsq createQueue( ICicsModel model, String queueNameSuffix );

If we did that, then you would get the 'isRecoverable' from the model explicitly, rather than implicitly via name-prefix matching.

[Anuprakash-Moothedath]

Hi @techcobweb , TSModel is a CICS resource. As we discussed in the meeting last week, I will be adding a new method in CICSResourceManager for creating TSModel. However as advised by you, that will go as a separate change after TSQ manager. TSQ manager is specific for TSQs only.

[techcobweb]

Some comments on the interfaces.

[techcobweb]

Also, if you want a re-review, can you pls hit the review request button, as it's easy to miss them otherwise, and it won't show up in my PRs-awaiting-review list. Thanks.

[galasa-team]

Automatic triggering of the build is cancelled as user is not a member of the approved groups. Please ask an admin to review this PR and create a comment on the PR stating 'Approved for building'

[techcobweb]

Should be true for javadoc if these APIs are to appear on the javadoc site.

[Anuprakash-Moothedath]

Hi @techcobweb , Is this required for IVTs?