Upgrade to OpenADR 3.1

[pohlm01]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 84.54333% with 198 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 80.57%. Comparing base (92f4ba1) to head (7435c22).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
openleadr-vtn/src/jwt.rs	45.00%	55 Missing ⚠️
openleadr-vtn/src/lib.rs	55.22%	30 Missing ⚠️
openleadr-client/src/ven.rs	65.51%	20 Missing ⚠️
openleadr-vtn/src/api/program.rs	85.71%	11 Missing ⚠️
openleadr-client/src/lib.rs	75.00%	8 Missing ⚠️
openleadr-client/src/mdns.rs	76.47%	8 Missing ⚠️
openleadr-vtn/src/api/report.rs	22.22%	7 Missing ⚠️
openleadr-vtn/src/state.rs	80.00%	7 Missing ⚠️
openleadr-vtn/src/data_source/postgres/event.rs	95.23%	6 Missing ⚠️
openleadr-vtn/src/main.rs	0.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
... and 13 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #313      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   80.88%   80.57%   -0.31%     
==========================================
  Files          42       45       +3     
  Lines        4870     5242     +372     
==========================================
+ Hits         3939     4224     +285     
- Misses        931     1018      +87     

☔ 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.

[TeaDrinkingProgrammer]

All tests on OpenADR3-client pass now (tested on commit ca27a00), so we will merge when you have merged and released a stable version on this side. Thanks for all the hard work!

ElaadNL/openadr3-client#53

[pohlm01]

@TeaDrinkingProgrammer I'm happy to hear we are passing your tests. Unfortunately, there is still a significant security loophole in the specification, see https://github.com/oadr3-org/specification/discussions/371#discussioncomment-16068667.

I don't feel comfortable releasing a stable version of OpenLEADR quite yet, given that any possible fix is still a todo for us. Right now, any client can send a BlVenRequest or BlResourceRequest, no matter if it's a BL or VEN. That way, a VEN can circumvent any limits set by object privacy. (actually, I find it interesting that this is not tested by the OpenADR test suite....).

I suggest that I create another pre-release, and you continue working with that until this is addressed by the OpenADR Alliance in the specification. What do you think?

[TeaDrinkingProgrammer]

Another pre-release works for us, I think we will release the client already since it works on our side, but I agree this issue needs to be resolved before a stable release.

[TeaDrinkingProgrammer]

(also, don't forget to keep an eye on the DCO checks, happens to me all the time as well)

[pohlm01]

@TeaDrinkingProgrammer, What is your opinion about #388? In short, we split the write_vens scope into write_vens_ven and write_vens_bl while keeping an alias of write_vens to write_vens_ven. See also in the Readme.
That way, we can make a distinction between BL clients and VEN clients for /ven and /resource requests. If you agree, I'm going to merge this branch (without subscriptions) into main and release the first stable 3.1 version.