Issue #, if available: #1496

Description of changes:

Adding partial failure for validation with SQS and Kinesis. Modification of the ValidationAspect.java to validate each messages of SQS/Kinesis batches and put invalid messages in partial batch failures list of the response. After the handler, we merge with user batch failures.

Checklist

[x] Meet tenets criteria
[x] Update tests
[x] Update docs
[x] PR title follows conventional commit semantics

Breaking change checklist

RFC issue #:

[ ] Migration process documented
[ ] Implement warnings (if it can live side by side)

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

Apr 05 '24 16:04 jeromevdl

:floppy_disk: Artifacts Size Report

Module	Version	Size (KB)
powertools-common	2.0.0-SNAPSHOT	9.63
powertools-serialization	2.0.0-SNAPSHOT	17.23
powertools-logging	2.0.0-SNAPSHOT	33.10
powertools-logging-log4j	2.0.0-SNAPSHOT	20.70
powertools-logging-logback	2.0.0-SNAPSHOT	16.92
powertools-tracing	2.0.0-SNAPSHOT	14.00
powertools-metrics	2.0.0-SNAPSHOT	13.78
powertools-parameters	2.0.0-SNAPSHOT	17.46
powertools-validation	2.0.0-SNAPSHOT	21.32
powertools-cloudformation	2.0.0-SNAPSHOT	16.54
powertools-idempotency-core	2.0.0-SNAPSHOT	34.70
powertools-idempotency-dynamodb	2.0.0-SNAPSHOT	12.38
powertools-large-messages	2.0.0-SNAPSHOT	17.52
powertools-batch	2.0.0-SNAPSHOT	21.51
powertools-parameters-ssm	2.0.0-SNAPSHOT	10.75
powertools-parameters-secrets	2.0.0-SNAPSHOT	9.97
powertools-parameters-dynamodb	2.0.0-SNAPSHOT	12.01
powertools-parameters-appconfig	2.0.0-SNAPSHOT	11.51

Apr 05 '24 16:04 github-actions[bot]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

Apr 08 '24 07:04 sonarqubecloud[bot]

Hey @jeromevdl this is a monster. Do you mind when you have a chance doing a quick writeup of the changes at a high level to start from?

Apr 11 '24 18:04 scottgerring

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 89.47368% with 12 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 77.84%. Comparing base (82d4b30) to head (0923826). Report is 76 commits behind head on v2.

:exclamation: Current head 0923826 differs from pull request most recent head 503170a

Please upload reports for the commit 503170a to get more accurate results.

Files	Patch %	Lines
...wertools/validation/internal/ValidationAspect.java	89.47%	7 Missing and 5 partials :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##                 v2    #1621       +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage     89.79%   77.84%   -11.96%     
- Complexity      406      479       +73     
=============================================
  Files            44       49        +5     
  Lines          1274     1733      +459     
  Branches        165      261       +96     
=============================================
+ Hits           1144     1349      +205     
- Misses           88      295      +207     
- Partials         42       89       +47

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Jun 21 '24 21:06 codecov[bot]

@scottgerring this one is ready for review

Jun 24 '24 08:06 jeromevdl

I should create one (or 2 ? kinesis/sqs) end-to-end tests for this maybe, wdyt @scottgerring ?

Jul 02 '24 08:07 jeromevdl

I should create one (or 2 ? kinesis/sqs) end-to-end tests for this maybe, wdyt @scottgerring ?

To be honest I feel like it might be better to invest time stabilizing the existing tests. As it stands more tests are just going to lead to more "was that an actual build failure or not", which has already put us in a situation where we don't trust the suite.

Could we get coverage out of integration style tests instead?

Jul 02 '24 09:07 scottgerring

Could we get coverage out of integration style tests instead?

Coverage is done with Unit Tests.

And E2E tests are quite stable, sometimes they time out but we rarely troubleshoot failed tests...

Jul 02 '24 11:07 jeromevdl

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

Jul 02 '24 11:07 sonarqubecloud[bot]

Coverage is done with Unit Tests.

I mean, you are concerned that something in here isn't being covered. Can you get it covered without relying on e2e tests?

but we rarely troubleshoot failed tests...

this is the problem I am referring to :D if we don't bother looking when they break.

Jul 03 '24 13:07 scottgerring

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

Aug 02 '24 13:08 sonarqubecloud[bot]

Dependency Review

The following issues were found:

✅ 0 vulnerable package(s)
❌ 1 package(s) with incompatible licenses
✅ 0 package(s) with invalid SPDX license definitions
✅ 0 package(s) with unknown licenses.

View full job summary

May 13 '25 11:05 github-actions[bot]

We might want to remove checkstyle from the project since we are using PMD now after the workflow refactoring (https://github.com/aws-powertools/powertools-lambda-java/issues/1231) by @sthulb

Eventually, we need to find a formatter that works across IDE specific implementations and can be applied from command line.

See this message: https://github.com/aws-powertools/powertools-lambda-java/issues/1345#issuecomment-1709680061