[SC-???] Do not request sensitive information unless it's going to be displayed

[UserNotFound]

In a number of cases, there is sensitive information we want to audit (track with Activity) when the user retrieves said information. So, we need to conditionally ask the API to not return that information, until it's actually needed. This is accomplished by first setting the header at the client level, and then reloading a resource when we need to, with resource = with_senstive(resource), before we access sensitive attributes.

Since this requires us to reference aptible api shared object attributes like href and headers, I added a StubAptibleResource and updated all our fabricators to inherit it. This should make further use of with_sensitive(resource)

These changes have been manually tested in integration against the existing API at main, and the planned API changes https://github.com/aptible/deploy-api/pull/2106 and https://github.com/aptible/aptible-integration/pull/600

I also removed the V1 stack code, since it's been years since it was relevant.

[madhuravius]

i left some comments and questions, this looks good from a code standpoint. i'm actively testing it now and will let you know if i find anything.

let me know if you need an approval (and wish to disregard my requests to leave a few possible clarifying comments, which are optional)

[madhuravius]

more of a quesiton but why is the filename 00_stub_resource.rb? versus other possible names? do youwant it at the top of the file list? seems strange

[UserNotFound]

I found that rspec or the fabricate gem (or whatever) imports them in alphabetical order! Without it being "first", everything is upset:

I think I can just move it to spec/support, though, since it's just a regular class and not fabricate specific, i'll try that.

[madhuravius]

thanks for the explanation and example, i had no idea. this makes sense to me now! might be worthwhile to leave a note but that's optional!

[madhuravius]

this looks good to me, i'm helping verify this manually and will share if there's any patches needing to be made. given it ran through other tests and the evidence you provided, i'm comfortable with these changes so far (will let you know if i run into anything during testing)