SDK getResource failOnNoData flag

[AndrewTwydell]

What It Does
Adds a failOnNodata flag, defaulting to true (which is the current behaviour), to dictate if CMCI sending a NODATA response should throw an error or not.

• PR relies on Using real data for unit test mocking #204

Review Checklist
I certify that I have:

• tested my changes
• added/updated automated tests
• updated the changelog
• followed the contribution guidelines

Additional Comments

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 42.38411% with 87 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 40.04%. Comparing base (f930e66) to head (a26121b).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
packages/vsce/src/utils/profileManagement.ts	24.10%	85 Missing ⚠️
packages/vsce/src/utils/expansionHandler.ts	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #205      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   39.91%   40.04%   +0.12%     
==========================================
  Files         147      148       +1     
  Lines        5003     5072      +69     
  Branches      873      891      +18     
==========================================
+ Hits         1997     2031      +34     
- Misses       3006     3041      +35     

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

[davenice]

This looks good too - do we need it for use in VSCE somewhere?

failOnNoData is added, but is optional, right? Is there any way this could break existing callers?

[AndrewTwydell]

Yeah the idea will be we implement this into the VSCE getResource calls so we don't have to handle NODATA CMCI errors. The fact it's optional means we're not breaking current users of the SDK as it's default behavior is not changing; only once you opt in to the new features using these optional flags will the behaviour change.

Currently a WIP, looking at an optional flag to change the error you can get out too which will offer more helpful CMCI info on failures (RESP, RESP2 etc)

[davenice]

The code looks good as far as I can see. I think we normally call it RESP/RESP2 rather than RESPONSE_1 and RESPONSE_2 - so we'd talk about "your RESP code" or "your RESP2 code" - but I don't think that's a big problem and it does disambiguate a bit!

I appreciate having a unit test that's identical other than asking for the old and new style of error response. That's useful. Are there any other kinds of errors we ought to drive that way? Is there anything other than "NODATA" we should prod?

I will sync the code and test it - but because this is and SDK change it would be valuable to have @zFernand0's input, or somebody that he delegates to!

[zFernand0]

LGTM! 😋

Thanks for adding the cmci request options! 🙏
Seem like the failOnNoData is properly defaulted to true as not to break existing behavior on the CLI 🙏

[davenice]

Two minor wording tweaks and it's a yes from me