Fix sslib new versions incompatibility bug

[MVrachev]

The incompatibility with newer securesystemslib versions was caused because of a new breaking change introduced in:
secure-systems-lab/securesystemslib#231

The changes were tested locally and the bootstrap works.

It seems that Pipenv.lock wasn't updated for a while as many changes not related were added.
I ran pipenv lock and on the time of submitting this pr on the latest main 248 lines of insertions and 200 lines of deletion are introduced in Pipenv.lock.

I added unit tests testing the new restrict argument to the LocalStorage.put() call which is used by default.
Also, updated the old tests to be consistent with the newer code.

Closes #118

Signed-off-by: Martin Vrachev mvrachev@vmware.com

[MVrachev]

There seems to be a lint failure. I will work to fix it today.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Base: 99.42% // Head: 99.05% // Decreases project coverage by -0.37% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (b33c1f2) compared to base (7225eff).
Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #159      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.42%   99.05%   -0.37%     
==========================================
  Files          12       12              
  Lines         522      530       +8     
==========================================
+ Hits          519      525       +6     
- Misses          3        5       +2     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
repository_service_tuf_worker/interfaces.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
repository_service_tuf_worker/repository.py	98.88% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
...itory_service_tuf_worker/services/storage/local.py	96.22% <100.00%> (-3.78%)	⬇️

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.

[MVrachev]

When I updated the securesystemslib I noticed that tox -e requirements failed suddenly.
I thought it was somehow connected to the newer securesytemslib versions but in their requirements files, I don't see those dependencies...

[kairoaraujo]

I merged #156
If you rebase it now, the changes only related to your PR will be clear.

[MVrachev]

Rebased and it's ready for review.

[kairoaraujo]

Can you please rebase again?

[MVrachev]

@kairoaraujo I rebased.

[kairoaraujo]

LGTM
nit: You can update the dependencies, sslib 0.26.0 was released, or let our workflow update after the merge.

$ pipenv update
$ make requirements

$  git diff
diff --git a/Pipfile.lock b/Pipfile.lock
index 3b5333c..4855f21 100644
--- a/Pipfile.lock
+++ b/Pipfile.lock
@@ -567,11 +567,11 @@
         },
         "securesystemslib": {
             "hashes": [
-                "sha256:04bc11593edd68405939d3dfc318080bfb31f1ebb5d81c7911914b42dfd4bf2f",
-                "sha256:10d5a066e70cb87704c9bf2cef1ef6d8a06fab5ef7602dd59c26d06251317a11"
+                "sha256:41c7b25c52dc0bafe774413b5738bbf4431f094e72a091e83d9921901972ae4c",
+                "sha256:a8fa49831d6a7e48f81050984ddfac3713af0c326f558727113533edb5ca8eac"
             ],
             "index": "pypi",
-            "version": "==0.25.0"
+            "version": "==0.26.0"
         },
         "setuptools": {
             "hashes": [
@@ -1551,11 +1551,11 @@
         },
         "securesystemslib": {
             "hashes": [
-                "sha256:04bc11593edd68405939d3dfc318080bfb31f1ebb5d81c7911914b42dfd4bf2f",
-                "sha256:10d5a066e70cb87704c9bf2cef1ef6d8a06fab5ef7602dd59c26d06251317a11"
+                "sha256:41c7b25c52dc0bafe774413b5738bbf4431f094e72a091e83d9921901972ae4c",
+                "sha256:a8fa49831d6a7e48f81050984ddfac3713af0c326f558727113533edb5ca8eac"
             ],
             "index": "pypi",
-            "version": "==0.25.0"
+            "version": "==0.26.0"
         },
         "setuptools": {
             "hashes": [
diff --git a/requirements-dev.txt b/requirements-dev.txt
index 4c49be2..c969b33 100644
--- a/requirements-dev.txt
+++ b/requirements-dev.txt
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ pytz==2022.7.1
 pyyaml==6.0 ; python_version >= '3.6'
 redis==4.4.2
 requests==2.28.2 ; python_version >= '3.7' and python_version < '4'
-securesystemslib==0.25.0
+securesystemslib==0.26.0
 setuptools==66.0.0 ; python_version >= '3.7'
 six==1.16.0 ; python_version >= '2.7' and python_version not in '3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3'
 snowballstemmer==2.2.0
diff --git a/requirements.txt b/requirements.txt
index f7b9136..a7a7973 100644
--- a/requirements.txt
+++ b/requirements.txt
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ pynacl==1.5.0
 pytz==2022.7.1
 redis==4.4.2
 requests==2.28.2 ; python_version >= '3.7' and python_version < '4'
-securesystemslib==0.25.0
+securesystemslib==0.26.0
 setuptools==66.0.0 ; python_version >= '3.7'
 six==1.16.0 ; python_version >= '2.7' and python_version not in '3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3'
 sqlalchemy==1.4.46

[MVrachev]

Done, updated to securesystemslib 0.26.0

[MVrachev]

@kairoaraujo suddenly, after the update to securesystemslib 0.26.0 the tests started to fail and the main problem seems to be they can't load the settings:

  >           settings.STORAGE = settings.STORAGE_BACKEND(**storage_kwargs)
  E           TypeError: Can't instantiate abstract class LocalStorage with abstract methods create_folder, getsize, list_folder, remove

Locally I don't have that problem and the tests pass.
Any ideas?

[MVrachev]

I removed the need for StorageBackendInterface, updated LocalStorage.put and updated the tests accordingly.
Ready for another review.

[MVrachev]

Rebased because of merge conflicts.

Can we review this pr and merge it with a higher priority as every bump of every dependency in requirements.txt or requirements-dev.txt causes merge conflicts and I have to rebase?

[MVrachev]

Ready for another review @kairoaraujo.