do not initialize fields in ObjectMD that are not used in S3C

[Kerkesni]

We set fields that are not used in S3C to undefined to avoid serializing and unecessarilty store them in the metadata. This could affect sizing and the load on the platform.

Issue: ARSN-411

[bert-e]

Hello kerkesni,

My role is to assist you with the merge of this
pull request. Please type @bert-e help to get information
on this process, or consult the user documentation.

Available options

name	description	privileged	authored
/after_pull_request	Wait for the given pull request id to be merged before continuing with the current one.
/bypass_author_approval	Bypass the pull request author's approval	⭐
/bypass_build_status	Bypass the build and test status	⭐
/bypass_commit_size	Bypass the check on the size of the changeset TBA	⭐
/bypass_incompatible_branch	Bypass the check on the source branch prefix	⭐
/bypass_jira_check	Bypass the Jira issue check	⭐
/bypass_peer_approval	Bypass the pull request peers' approval	⭐
/bypass_leader_approval	Bypass the pull request leaders' approval	⭐
/approve	Instruct Bert-E that the author has approved the pull request.		✍️
/create_pull_requests	Allow the creation of integration pull requests.
/create_integration_branches	Allow the creation of integration branches.
/no_octopus	Prevent Wall-E from doing any octopus merge and use multiple consecutive merge instead
/unanimity	Change review acceptance criteria from one reviewer at least to all reviewers
/wait	Instruct Bert-E not to run until further notice.

Available commands

name	description	privileged
/help	Print Bert-E's manual in the pull request.
/status	Print Bert-E's current status in the pull request TBA
/clear	Remove all comments from Bert-E from the history TBA
/retry	Re-start a fresh build TBA
/build	Re-start a fresh build TBA
/force_reset	Delete integration branches & pull requests, and restart merge process from the beginning.
/reset	Try to remove integration branches unless there are commits on them which do not appear on the source branch.

Status report is not available.

[bert-e]

Request integration branches

Waiting for integration branch creation to be requested by the user.

To request integration branches, please comment on this pull request with the following command:

/create_integration_branches

Alternatively, the /approve and /create_pull_requests commands will automatically
create the integration branches.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 64.91%. Comparing base (94c7038) to head (e99daf4).

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##           development/8.1    #2268   +/-   ##
================================================
  Coverage            64.90%   64.91%           
================================================
  Files                  215      215           
  Lines                17298    17299    +1     
  Branches              3514     3514           
================================================
+ Hits                 11228    11229    +1     
  Misses                6055     6055           
  Partials                15       15           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[francoisferrand]

• How can we make sure this does not break everything? If we used the model consistently, it would be easy to adress.... but all over the place we access the MD directly, so there may be cases where we don't properly handle the absence of a field...

• Should not be merge on 8.1 : best to target 8.2 to avoid regressions... (and this is getting merged in backbeat anyway, so we should be fine)

[bert-e]

Waiting for approval

The following approvals are needed before I can proceed with the merge:

• the author

• 2 peers

[francoisferrand]

is it worth keeping these (undefiend) fields in the default value?
since:

• the model is defined above (so does not help with 'documenting')
• undefined will not be serialized
• when this type is used, methods should be used to access the data and handle the missing optional fields

[anurag4DSB]

Is there a way we are testing this?

Edit: Code looks good, but I am not sure if it works fine, so can we test this e2e as well (if not already)

[Kerkesni]

/approve

[bert-e]

In the queue

The changeset has received all authorizations and has been added to the
relevant queue(s). The queue(s) will be merged in the target development
branch(es) as soon as builds have passed.

The changeset will be merged in:

• ✔️ development/8.2

The following branches will NOT be impacted:

• development/6.4
• development/7.10
• development/7.4
• development/7.70
• development/8.1

There is no action required on your side. You will be notified here once
the changeset has been merged. In the unlikely event that the changeset
fails permanently on the queue, a member of the admin team will
contact you to help resolve the matter.

IMPORTANT

Please do not attempt to modify this pull request.

• Any commit you add on the source branch will trigger a new cycle after the
  current queue is merged.
• Any commit you add on one of the integration branches will be lost.

If you need this pull request to be removed from the queue, please contact a
member of the admin team now.

The following options are set: approve

[bert-e]

I have successfully merged the changeset of this pull request
into targetted development branches:

• ✔️ development/8.2

The following branches have NOT changed:

• development/6.4
• development/7.10
• development/7.4
• development/7.70
• development/8.1

Please check the status of the associated issue ARSN-411.

Goodbye kerkesni.