feat(projectsADM): add possibility to get project and members by UUID (DEV-1408)

[mpro7]

Issue Number: DEV-1488

Pull Request Checklist

Basic Requirements

Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:

• Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
• Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)

PR Type

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

• Bugfix: represents bug fixes
• Refactor: represents production code refactoring
• Feature: represents a new feature
• Documentation: documentation changes (no production code change)
• Chore: maintenance tasks (no production code change)
• Style: styles updates (no production code change)
• Test: all about tests: adding, refactoring tests (no production code change)
• Other... Please describe:

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

• Yes
• No

Does this PR change client-test-data?

• Yes (don't forget to update the JS-LIB team about the change)
• No

Other information

[swarmia]

✅  Linked to Story DEV-1408 · DSP-API: Make possible to get project by UUID
➡️  Part of Epic DEV-1403 · Project UUIDs

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 86.85% // Head: 86.95% // Increases project coverage by +0.09% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (68c9aba) compared to base (c5c98ce).
Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2272      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   86.85%   86.95%   +0.09%     
==========================================
  Files         241      242       +1     
  Lines       27967    28102     +135     
==========================================
+ Hits        24292    24435     +143     
+ Misses       3675     3667       -8     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...p-shared/src/main/scala/dsp/valueobjects/Iri.scala	94.68% <100.00%> (+0.36%)	⬆️
...sp-shared/src/main/scala/dsp/valueobjects/V2.scala	90.00% <100.00%> (+5.94%)	⬆️
.../knora/webapi/routing/admin/ProjectsRouteADM.scala	93.10% <0.00%> (-4.27%)	⬇️
...sp-shared/src/main/scala/dsp/valueobjects/Id.scala	65.38% <0.00%> (-3.85%)	⬇️
...n/scala/org/knora/webapi/routing/HealthRoute.scala	69.81% <0.00%> (-1.89%)	⬇️
...la/org/knora/webapi/messages/StringFormatter.scala	89.36% <0.00%> (-0.81%)	⬇️
...r/permissionsmessages/PermissionsMessagesADM.scala	86.39% <0.00%> (-0.32%)	⬇️
...ages/util/search/gravsearch/GravsearchParser.scala	68.13% <0.00%> (-0.26%)	⬇️
...scala/org/knora/webapi/routing/Authenticator.scala	88.88% <0.00%> (-0.08%)	⬇️
... and 29 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[BalduinLandolt]

Tests are missing... as discussed, this is probably not testable in unit tests. but is there a ent-to-end test that you could use?

[mpro7]

Tests are missing... as discussed, this is probably not testable in unit tests. but is there a ent-to-end test that you could use?

This is testable in unit tests of the project route which we don't have. We only have e2e tests of the project responder, which would look the same as get by IRI tests, simply because of making UUID the IRI to reuse existing stuff. But if these tests pass we can assume that it's good.

[BalduinLandolt]

Looks good. Nothing to add from my side, apart from what we already discussed yesterday

[irinaschubert]

I don't really understand the whole point in having e.g. a Shortcode and a ShortcodeIdentifier and not merge these two types into one (reuse the existing (new) value objects and let them extend the ProjectIdentifierADM). To me this looks overengineered but I probably don't see the whole picture. Apart from that it looks good to me, I added mainly suggestions to improve the readability of the code.

[irinaschubert]

I don't understand why this has to be treated differently than shortcode and shortname and can't be treated as a String? (Same for getProjectByUuid.)

[mpro7]

Good point. I just repeated @subotic implementation, so maybe he can highlight us why this was implemented differently? However as we agreed this is not used anywhere thus going to be removed.

[BalduinLandolt]

not much to add from my side