CPS-322 - Getting issue details... STATUS
Currently there is no validation within CPS for Network Function names/ID's. Meaning that there is no restrictions to what the following can be named
- Dataspaces
- Schema-Sets
- Anchors
- CM-handles
- CM-Handle Properties.
Open Issues
- What kind of naming validation should be in place?
- According to this ONAP Documentation it should be alphanumeric with underscores(_) VNF and PNF Modeling Requirements - Resource IDs
- Should CM-Handle ID's be more strict, or carry the same amount of strictness as anchor names. Due to the fact that we create a corresponding anchor for every CM-Handle it cannot be less strict.
- Should validation also be applied to Get/Query API's as opposed to just creation of the functions above? (Not recommended as this will add little value, at a high cost)
Implementation Proposals
- Use general regex for String validation.
- Use Spring validator.
- Throw Data Validation Exception(BAD_REQUEST 400 Error Code) on invalid ID's.
- If same rules apply for anchor as CM-Handle ID, throw the exception when creating the anchor (Current code will have to be refactored to accomplish this, as CM-Handle is registered before Anchor is created).
- Or, CPS-Core will expose a new java interface to check if anchor name is valid when registering a CM-Handle.