New env var introduced edc.vault.hashicorp.config in EDC 0.15.0 version creating issue

[AasthaRai17]

Hello team,

I was previously using EDC version 0.14 with HashiCorp Vault, where the configuration was provided via individual environment variables (e.g., URL, token).

After upgrading to EDC version 0.15, I am encountering the following exception:

org.eclipse.edc.spi.EdcException: No setting found for key edc.vault.hashicorp.config
at org.eclipse.edc.spi.system.configuration.ConfigImpl.getNotNullValue(ConfigImpl.java:198)
at org.eclipse.edc.spi.system.configuration.ConfigImpl.getString(ConfigImpl.java:58)
at org.eclipse.edc.participantcontext.config.ParticipantContextConfigImpl.getSensitiveString(ParticipantContextConfigImpl.java:88)
at org.eclipse.edc.vault.hashicorp.HashicorpVaultSettings.forParticipant(HashicorpVaultSettings.java:49)
at org.eclipse.edc.vault.hashicorp.HashicorpVault.createForPartition(HashicorpVault.java:110)
at org.eclipse.edc.vault.hashicorp.HashicorpVault.getVaultClient(HashicorpVault.java:95)

To address this, I added the environment variable EDC_VAULT_HASHCORP_CONFIG, using a JSON value referenced from one of your test classes:

{
"config": {
"vaultUrl": "",
"folderPath": "",
"secretPath": "",
"healthCheckPath": "v1/sys/health",
"ttl": 300
},
"credentials": {
"token": ""
}
}

However, I am still unable to resolve the issue. The documentation at the following link does not appear to provide guidance relevant to this error:

https://github.com/eclipse-edc/Connector/blob/bb0082589e6e6aacde2ca3300717c97653efea01/extensions/common/vault/vault-hashicorp/README.md

It appears that ParticipantContextConfigImpl.getSensitiveString() may be attempting to resolve a configuration value that is specific to a participant context. Could you please clarify whether an additional or participant-specific environment variable is required?

Thank you for your assistance.

[wolf4ood]

I think this is a known issue of 0.15.0,

A 0.15.1 has been release to fix this, can you check with 0.15.1?

Thanks

[ndr-brt]

exactly, the issue has been described here: #5401

[AasthaRai17]

Thanks for the quick reply. :)