yasithdev opened a new pull request, #650: URL: https://github.com/apache/airavata/pull/650
## Summary The `DataProductService` request messages name their URI field **`product_uri`**, but three `ResearchClient` facade methods in `airavata-python-sdk/airavata_sdk/facade/research.py` constructed those requests with the keyword **`data_product_uri=`**. protobuf rejects an unknown field keyword at message construction, so every call raised: ``` ValueError: Protocol message GetDataProductRequest has no "data_product_uri" field. ``` before it ever reached the server — i.e. `get_data_product`, `get_parent_data_product`, and `get_child_data_products` were completely non-functional. This surfaced while migrating the Django portal's data-product read path onto the gRPC SDK (every `get_data_product` call hard-failed). ## Fix Pass the correct `product_uri=` keyword in all three methods: - `get_data_product` → `GetDataProductRequest(product_uri=...)` - `get_parent_data_product` → `GetParentDataProductRequest(product_uri=...)` - `get_child_data_products` → `GetChildDataProductsRequest(product_uri=...)` ## Verification Checked every data-product request descriptor; the URI field is `product_uri` on all three (`GetDataProductRequest` / `GetParentDataProductRequest` / `GetChildDataProductsRequest`). Confirmed the corrected `product_uri=` constructions succeed and the old `data_product_uri=` keyword raises `ValueError` on each. The fixed `get_data_product` was exercised live against the running server (reaches the backend instead of failing at construction). ## Notes for reviewers I reviewed the sibling data-product / replica methods in the same facade for the same class of mismatch: - `register_data_product` / `update_data_product` / `delete_data_product` / `get_replica_location` use the correct keywords (`data_product`, `product_uri`, `replica_id`) — no change. - **Separate observation (not changed here):** `register_replica_location` only passes `replica_location=...`, but `RegisterReplicaLocationRequest` also has a `product_uri` field. That is a possible *missing-association* issue rather than a wrong-name crash, and fixing it correctly needs the intended semantics (which product the replica attaches to), so I left it out of this focused field-name bug-fix. Flagging for a maintainer. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
