refactor(secrets): Make common createPath() code the default

[sschuberth]

No description provided.

[oheger-bosch]

What I dislike on the new approach is that the separator ('_') between level and ID is now repeated multiple times, making it harder to change the way paths are generated.

An alternative could be having a nested function like

fun levelId(level: String, id: Long?): String? =
  id?.let { "${level}_$id" }

and then do something like

return listOfNotNull(
    levelId("organization", organizationId),
    levelId("product", productId),
    levelId("repository", repositoryId)
)..singleOrNull() ?: throw IllegalArgumentException(...)

[sschuberth]

the separator ('_') between level and ID is now repeated multiple times, making it harder to change the way paths are generated.

Actually, I think that could be even an advantage, as no one says that the separator between path components and the final name should be the same. While implementing a new secrets provider, I was actually struggling with the fact that from a given Path, you cannot easily tell anymore which was the "name" part only (as the name could also contain an underscore itself).

I've found a good way to solve that now, but I'm still not sure whether we should enforce the separator to be the same between all path components.

An alternative could be having a nested function like

My goal was to make the code simpler, not more complex / longer 😉

[sschuberth]

Anyway, I expect the code to change again with a new iteration of #271.

[oheger-bosch]

Anyway, I expect the code to change again with a new iteration of #271.

So, I see no point in changing this now. Could this commit be dropped?

[sschuberth]

So, I see no point in changing this now. Could this commit be dropped?

I see no point in spending work to drop it as it's already there. Can it stay?

[sschuberth]

Ok, whatever, I've dropped the last commit to move things forward.