Addition of Installation Type field in Jira Source Proto [INS-79]

[shahzadhaider1]

Add configuration option to override Jira installation type autodetection (Cloud vs Data Center).

Problem

Currently, we autodetect whether a Jira instance is Cloud or Data Center by making a HEAD request to a cloud-only endpoint. If the endpoint returns 404, it's assumed to be Data Center; otherwise, it's Cloud.

This autodetection could fail if:

• Atlassian changes their API endpoints
• Network/firewall rules block the detection request
• Custom Jira configurations behave unexpectedly

Solution

Added installation_type field to the Jira source configuration.

Checklist:

• Tests passing (make test-community)?
• Lint passing (make lint this requires golangci-lint)?

[mustansir14]

It's a good practice (mentioned in the protobuf guide) to have the first value of the enum be ENUM_TYPE_NAME_UNSPECIFIED or ENUM_TYPE_NAME_UNKNOWN

[shahzadhaider1]

You're right. I was just following convention. What do you think?

[mustansir14]

Hmm, it's a matter of what we've been doing and what's the right way of doing it....... I'm not sure about this.

Personally I agree with the guide. Having the default value of the enum be an UNKNOWN value makes sense because then your downstream application can know that the caller did not explicitly specify a value. In our case, we would probably map this UNKNOWN to AUTODETECT, but still there will be a way to differentiate if the user actually wanted AUTODETECT or if they just didn't specify a value.

[rosecodym]

Great callout! :) But in this particular case, we (well, I) consciously chose for AUTODETECT to be the "unknown" option. No user is ever going to explicitly configure AUTODETECT because it's documented as the default, so there is a nice congruence between "default behavior" and "unspecified behavior."

And while maybe the choice I made was not the best one, I believe that it's important to make the same choice here so we get the benefits of consistency. If either of you feel more strongly the other way though, let's have a broader conversation about it!

[shahzadhaider1]

That makes sense; consistency is a solid point.
I'm fine with keeping it as AUTODETECT or following the best practice.

I requested a review from @camgunz just for visibility / another perspective since you mentioned a broader discussion could make sense.

[shahzadhaider1]

Going ahead with the initial implementation (as suggested by Cody as well).