RHINENG-26348: add skip notifications for platform events

[TenSt]

This PR:

• add skip_notifications on PlatformEvent for recovery recalc
• skip Kafka notify publish when set; still mark advisory_account_data.notified
• add unit tests for JSON round-trip and skip-publish behavior

Summary by Sourcery

Add support for per-event skipping of instant advisory notifications while still marking advisories as notified.

New Features:

• Introduce a SkipNotifications flag on PlatformEvent to control advisory notification publishing behavior per event.

Enhancements:

• Refactor advisory notification publishing to share logic for marking advisories as notified and to support a skip-publish mode used for recovery recalculation workflows.

Tests:

• Add evaluator tests to verify skip_notifications events store advisories, mark them notified, and avoid Kafka notification publishing.
• Add platform event JSON serialization tests to ensure skip_notifications is omitted when false and round-trips correctly when true.

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's Guide

Adds a skip_notifications flag to PlatformEvent and evaluator advisory notification flow, allowing advisory_account_data.notified to be marked without publishing Kafka notifications, and introduces tests covering JSON round-trip and skip-publish behavior.

File-Level Changes

Change	Details	Files
Introduce skip_notifications on PlatformEvent and wire it into evaluator advisory notification logic so events can opt out of Kafka publishing while still marking advisories as notified.	Add SkipNotifications boolean field with json:"skip_notifications,omitempty" to PlatformEvent and document its semantics Update evaluateAndStore to call publishNewAdvisoriesNotification whenever instant notifications are enabled or SkipNotifications is set, passing SkipNotifications through as a skipPublish flag Add tests validating PlatformEvent SkipNotifications JSON behavior (true serialized, false omitted, default false on unmarshal) and full evaluateHandler path with SkipNotifications set to ensure advisories are stored, marked notified, and Kafka publishing is skipped	base/mqueue/platform_event.go base/mqueue/platform_event_test.go evaluator/evaluate.go evaluator/notifications_test.go
Refactor advisory notification publishing to support a skip-publish mode that only marks advisories as notified without sending Kafka messages.	Extract advisory_account_data.notified update into a reusable markAdvisoriesNotified helper with proper error wrapping Extend publishNewAdvisoriesNotification with a skipPublish boolean parameter and early-return path that logs and calls markAdvisoriesNotified when publishing is skipped Retain existing behavior when skipPublish is false, but reuse markAdvisoriesNotified instead of duplicating the update code Update existing tests to pass the new skipPublish parameter and add a dedicated test to verify skipPublish=true marks advisories as notified while producing no Kafka messages	evaluator/notifications.go evaluator/notifications_test.go

---

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

• Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
• Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
  issue from a review comment by replying to it. You can also reply to a
  review comment with @sourcery-ai issue to create an issue from it.
• Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
  request title to generate a title at any time. You can also comment
  @sourcery-ai title on the pull request to (re-)generate the title at any time.
• Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
  the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time exactly where you
  want it. You can also comment @sourcery-ai summary on the pull request to
  (re-)generate the summary at any time.
• Generate reviewer's guide: Comment @sourcery-ai guide on the pull
  request to (re-)generate the reviewer's guide at any time.
• Resolve all Sourcery comments: Comment @sourcery-ai resolve on the
  pull request to resolve all Sourcery comments. Useful if you've already
  addressed all the comments and don't want to see them anymore.
• Dismiss all Sourcery reviews: Comment @sourcery-ai dismiss on the pull
  request to dismiss all existing Sourcery reviews. Especially useful if you
  want to start fresh with a new review - don't forget to comment
  @sourcery-ai review to trigger a new review!

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

• Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
  summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
• Change the review language.
• Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
• Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

• Contact our support team for questions or feedback.
• Visit our documentation for detailed guides and information.
• Keep in touch with the Sourcery team by following us on X/Twitter, LinkedIn or GitHub.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey - I've found 1 issue, and left some high level feedback:

• In publishNewAdvisoriesNotification, when notificationsPublisher is nil you now return before calling markAdvisoriesNotified, which means advisories remain unmarked and can still flood later; consider either calling markAdvisoriesNotified in this branch or restoring the early nil check before doing the DB work so behavior is explicit.
• Since markAdvisoriesNotified encapsulates the advisory_account_data update, consider reusing it in any other paths that directly manipulate notified to keep the update logic centralized and consistent.

Prompt for AI Agents

Please address the comments from this code review:

## Overall Comments
- In `publishNewAdvisoriesNotification`, when `notificationsPublisher` is nil you now return before calling `markAdvisoriesNotified`, which means advisories remain unmarked and can still flood later; consider either calling `markAdvisoriesNotified` in this branch or restoring the early nil check before doing the DB work so behavior is explicit.
- Since `markAdvisoriesNotified` encapsulates the `advisory_account_data` update, consider reusing it in any other paths that directly manipulate `notified` to keep the update logic centralized and consistent.

## Individual Comments

### Comment 1
<location path="base/mqueue/platform_event_test.go" line_range="27-34" />
<code_context>
+	assert.True(t, parsed.SkipNotifications)
+
+	// omitempty: false must not appear in JSON; fresh unmarshal defaults to false
+	event.SkipNotifications = false
+	data, err = sonic.Marshal(event)
+	assert.NoError(t, err)
+	assert.NotContains(t, string(data), "skip_notifications")
+
+	var parsedFalse PlatformEvent
+	assert.NoError(t, sonic.Unmarshal(data, &parsedFalse))
+	assert.False(t, parsedFalse.SkipNotifications)
+}
+
</code_context>
<issue_to_address>
**suggestion (testing):** Avoid brittle string-based assertion for omitting skip_notifications in JSON

The test currently checks `omitempty` by searching the marshaled JSON string for `"skip_notifications"`, which is fragile if formatting or encoding changes. Instead, unmarshal into a `map[string]any` and assert the key is absent:

```go
var m map[string]any
assert.NoError(t, sonic.Unmarshal(data, &m))
assert.NotContains(t, m, "skip_notifications")
```
This validates the JSON structure rather than relying on string content.

Suggested implementation:

```golang
	// omitempty: false must not appear in JSON; fresh unmarshal defaults to false
+
+	event.SkipNotifications = false
+	data, err = sonic.Marshal(event)
+	assert.NoError(t, err)
+
+	var m map[string]any
+	assert.NoError(t, sonic.Unmarshal(data, &m))
+	assert.NotContains(t, m, "skip_notifications")
+
+	var parsedFalse PlatformEvent
+	assert.NoError(t, sonic.Unmarshal(data, &parsedFalse))
+	assert.False(t, parsedFalse.SkipNotifications)

```

If this test function currently ends immediately after the snippet you provided, no further changes are required. If there are other assertions that depend on the raw JSON string, consider converting them similarly to structure-based checks (using maps or strongly typed structs) to keep tests robust against formatting/serialization changes.
</issue_to_address>

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 77.27273% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 59.29%. Comparing base (7ae4e4b) to head (19394a1).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
evaluator/notifications.go	73.68%	2 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2286      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   59.27%   59.29%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         148      148              
  Lines        9488     9497       +9     
==========================================
+ Hits         5624     5631       +7     
- Misses       3276     3277       +1     
- Partials      588      589       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	59.29% <77.27%> (+0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.