Adds snapshot management notification implementation

[downsrob]

Signed-off-by: Clay Downs [email protected]

Issue #, if available:

Description of changes:

• Introduces the model changes for snapshot management notification integration

"sm_policy": {
  ...
  "notification": {
    "channel": {
      "id": "some_channel_id"
    },
    "conditions": {
      "creation": true,
      "deletion": false,
      "failure": false,
      "time_limit_exceeded": false
    }
  }
}

The hooks configure the following:
Creation: when enabled, a notification will be published to the configured channel noting the creation of a snapshot. The message sent will be ""Snapshot <snapshot_name> was created successfully"
Deletion: when enabled, a notification will be published to the configured channel noting the deletion of a snapshot.
"Snapshot(s) <deleted_snapshots> deletion has finished."
Failure: when enabled, a notification will be published to the configured channel noting that a failure occurred while creating or deleting a snapshot.
Either a specific message related to the failure will be sent, or if an uncaught exception is thrown, the message sent will be "There was an exception while executing Snapshot Management policy ${job.policyName}, skipping execution."
Time limit exceeded: when enabled, a notification will be published to the configured channel noting that the configured time limit was exceeded. When this occurs, we simply skip the current creation or deletion, so it isn't explicitly a failure.
"Time limit $timeLimit exceeded during snapshot $workflow step"

CheckList:

• Commits are signed per the DCO using --signoff

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #387 (d3dd136) into sm-dev (fca8469) will decrease coverage by 0.03%.
The diff coverage is 71.96%.

❗ Current head d3dd136 differs from pull request most recent head 2b65ea9. Consider uploading reports for the commit 2b65ea9 to get more accurate results

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             sm-dev     #387      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     75.31%   75.28%   -0.04%     
- Complexity     2345     2444      +99     
============================================
  Files           298      312      +14     
  Lines         13517    14478     +961     
  Branches       2072     2232     +160     
============================================
+ Hits          10181    10900     +719     
- Misses         2190     2353     +163     
- Partials       1146     1225      +79     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...pensearch/indexmanagement/IndexManagementRunner.kt	55.55% <ø> (ø)
...dexmanagement/common/model/notification/Channel.kt	48.38% <0.00%> (ø)
...ent/common/model/notification/NotificationUtils.kt	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
.../indexstatemanagement/action/NotificationAction.kt	68.18% <ø> (ø)
...statemanagement/action/NotificationActionParser.kt	83.33% <ø> (ø)
...nt/indexstatemanagement/model/ErrorNotification.kt	13.15% <ø> (ø)
...ent/indexstatemanagement/util/NotificationUtils.kt	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ment/snapshotmanagement/api/transport/SMActions.kt	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...g/opensearch/indexmanagement/util/SecurityUtils.kt	13.23% <0.00%> (-5.52%)	⬇️
...hotmanagement/api/transport/BaseTransportAction.kt	78.26% <33.33%> (-7.46%)	⬇️
... and 57 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update d64e100...2b65ea9. Read the comment docs.

[qreshi]

I'm assuming User.toString() wasn't following this format which is why a utility method was added for it here. Should we instead add a formattedString() method option to common-utils's User method so that it can roundtrip between String and parse in a self-contained way?

[downsrob]

Good point, yes I believe this would be useful to expose for everyone in common-utils

[qreshi]

This is more of a general comment but if you haven't already, you can try adding an integration test like this which uses a custom webhook Notification channel which indexes locally to test the Notification integration functionality.

It looks like that test linked above needs to be looked over before it's usable again though so I don't see it as a blocker for approval, more of a nice-to-have.

[downsrob]

Yeah, I was planning on adding unit and integration tests but wanted to get this in as soon as possible to make it available for pentesters. That test broke when we switched to the notification plugin, I'll try to fix it and will sync up with you if I get blocked.

[bowenlan-amzn]

Not sure what is this for?

[downsrob]

That is the exception thrown by the security utils, catching and rethrowing it so security exceptions aren't logged as "uncaught exception"