Fix: Determine workflow configuration by checking group assignment

[kskaiser]

References

• Fixes [Request a Correction] isWorkflowConfigured method does not work on migrated (<7.x) groups #534

Description

XMLWorkflowItemService#isWorkflowConfigured uses a pattern-based approach for identifying potential groups by name that would allow to edit/review an item. This does not work for migrated configurations <7.x; they use a different pattern. Furthermore, the existence of a group with a matching name says nothing about whether a workflow is actually configured for the collection.

Instructions for Reviewers

List of changes in this PR:

• First, the implementation was changed to get check for each possible workflow step of a collection a group is defined. If a group is defined and it's not empty, the check returns true.
• Second, the methods definition in the interface was changed, because the new implementation does not throw an exception.
• Third, a new integration test was implemented testing all possible configurations.
  The new test is XmlWorkflowItemServiceIT. Run it:

mvn install -DskipIntegrationTests=false  -DfailIfNoTests=false -Dit.test=XmlWorkflowItemServiceIT

Checklist

This checklist provides a reminder of what we are going to look for when reviewing your PR. You need not complete this checklist prior to creating your PR (draft PRs are always welcome). If you are unsure about an item in the checklist, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help!

• My PR is small in size (e.g. less than 1,000 lines of code, not including comments & integration tests). Exceptions may be made if previously agreed upon.
• My PR passes Checkstyle validation based on the Code Style Guide.
• My PR includes Javadoc for all new (or modified) public methods and classes. It also includes Javadoc for large or complex private methods.
• My PR passes all tests and includes new/updated Unit or Integration Tests based on the Code Testing Guide.
• If my PR includes new libraries/dependencies (in any pom.xml), I've made sure their licenses align with the DSpace BSD License based on the Licensing of Contributions documentation.
• If my PR modifies REST API endpoints, I've opened a separate REST Contract PR related to this change.
• If my PR includes new configurations, I've provided basic technical documentation in the PR itself.
• If my PR fixes an issue ticket, I've linked them together.

[vins01-4science]

Changes looks good to me.

I would like to perform some more testing about this PR, and I will try to merge it as soon as possible!

Thank you @kskaiser!

[kshepherd]

Hi @kskaiser , thanks for this contribution. After some more discussion, I think it would be better to open this PR against the main https://github.com/DSpace/DSpace repository, so it can be discussed and included in the upstream code, while merger activity is still on-going.

The only other thing that occurred to me as I looked at the change, is to make sure that this does not return a false negative for any modern custom workflow configurations that use role names but do not have the legacy "step" integer IDs.

[kskaiser]

Thank you, @kshepherd.

This code is DSpace-CRIS specific. It is part of the “Request a correction” feature, which is not available in upstream DSpace (yet). My understanding is that this functionality would eventually be covered by DSpace issue #11794, but that issue is not currently planned. Therefore I don’t think this change can be proposed against the upstream repository at this time.

Regarding your second point: the proposed implementation does not rely on the legacy workflow “step” integer IDs. Instead, it checks the workflow configuration stored in table "cwf_collectionrole", using the collection UUID and the assigned EPersonGroup UUIDs. In other words, it determines whether workflow groups are actually configured for the collection, rather than inferring that from the names of EPersonGroups. This means it also works with modern custom workflow configurations where group names do not follow the legacy naming pattern.