feat: Add support for response hooks in idempotency utility

[hjgraca]

Please provide the issue number

Issue number: #795

Summary

Changes

• Introduce ResponseHook delegate to IdempotencyOptions and builder
• Invoke response hook on idempotent responses in IdempotencyAspectHandler
• Update documentation with usage examples and best practices for response hooks
• Add integration tests for response hook execution and exception handling

This pull request introduces a new "response hook" feature to the idempotency utility, allowing users to manipulate the returned data for idempotent operations. It adds configuration options, implements the hook logic in the idempotency handler.

Response Hook Feature

• Added a ResponseHook delegate property to the IdempotencyOptions class, enabling users to specify a function to modify responses for idempotent operations.
• Implemented the response hook logic in IdempotencyAspectHandler.HandleForStatus, ensuring the hook is called only for idempotent responses and gracefully handles exceptions or type mismatches.

Configuration and Builder Updates

• Extended the IdempotencyOptionsBuilder with a WithResponseHook method, allowing users to set the hook during configuration.
• Updated builder and documentation comments for consistency and clarity regarding usage.

Idempotency.Config() .WithConfig(IdempotencyOptions.Builder() .WithEventKeyJmesPath("powertools_json(body).address") .WithResponseHook((responseData, dataRecord) => { if (responseData is APIGatewayProxyResponse proxyResponse) { proxyResponse.Headers ??= new Dictionary<string, string>(); proxyResponse.Headers["x-idempotency-response"] = "true"; proxyResponse.Headers["x-idempotency-expiration"] = dataRecord.ExpiryTimestamp.ToString(); return proxyResponse; } return responseData; }) .Build()) .WithPersistenceStore(DynamoDBPersistenceStore.Builder() .WithTableName(Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable("IDEMPOTENCY_TABLE")) .Build()) .Configure();

User experience

Please share what the user experience looks like before and after this change

Checklist

Please leave checklist items unchecked if they do not apply to your change.

• Meets tenets criteria
• I have performed a self-review of this change
• Changes have been tested
• Changes are documented
• PR title follows conventional commit semantics

Is this a breaking change?

RFC issue number:

Checklist:

• Migration process documented
• Implement warnings (if it can live side by side)

Acknowledgment

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

Disclaimer: We value your time and bandwidth. As such, any pull requests created on non-triaged issues might not be successful.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 91.66667% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 77.47%. Comparing base (e1c72a2) to head (87f6387).
⚠️ Report is 30 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...s.Idempotency/Internal/IdempotencyAspectHandler.cs	76.92%	1 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@ ## develop #968 +/- ## ======================================== Coverage 77.47% 77.47% ======================================== Files 271 271 Lines 10886 10900 +14 Branches 1284 1287 +3 ======================================== + Hits 8434 8445 +11  - Misses 2040 2041 +1  - Partials 412 414 +2 

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[hjgraca]

Sonar alerted for the constructor now having more that 7 arguments. Refactor to builder pattern.

[hjgraca]

Now properties for builder pattern

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud