feat: isolate server ut communication

[cisse21]

Description

This PR attempts to dissect the processor/transformer file which served as a common ground for UT,DT and TP thus making it much harder to implement custom changes for each of these components

It makes use of strategy pattern to have a common interface defined for each of the communication component and the components are isolated in each of their files with their respective tests

Linear Ticket

Fixes PIPE-5430

Security

• The code changed/added as part of this pull request won't create any security issues with how the software is being used.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 90.55046% with 103 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 75.25%. Comparing base (2353c68) to head (3d92dad).
Report is 5 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...l/transformer/user_transformer/user_transformer.go	86.34%	27 Missing and 10 partials ⚠️
...trackingplan_validation/trackingplan_validation.go	89.36%	17 Missing and 8 partials ⚠️
...destination_transformer/destination_transformer.go	93.96%	9 Missing and 5 partials ⚠️
processor/processor.go	91.37%	7 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
processor/transformer/clients.go	50.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
processor/trackingplan.go	80.00%	3 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
processor/transformer/transformer.go	90.62%	3 Missing ⚠️
processor/internal/transformer/utils.go	97.14%	1 Missing ⚠️
...ger/transformation/transformationStatusUploader.go	66.66%	1 Missing ⚠️
warehouse/transformer/logger.go	50.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
... and 1 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #5430      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   75.06%   75.25%   +0.19%     
==========================================
  Files         462      473      +11     
  Lines       63944    64851     +907     
==========================================
+ Hits        47998    48805     +807     
- Misses      13270    13346      +76     
- Partials     2676     2700      +24     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[ktgowtham]

1. Can I assume the implementation logic(in user_trans, dest_trans) is exactly same as copied from transformer.go? planning to skip reviewing that part for just skim it through.

2. router transformer will remain as is? it’s only transformation in processor that we’re splitting out rt?

3. Looks like we’ve not replaced function calls to use the new sendrequest function. do we plan to do that in follow up PR?

4. Are we okay to have types.TransformerEvent as param for all implementations(in ServiceClient -> SendRequest)? Will we lose flexibility to have same struct? or is it going to be same and we choose what to populate in that struct?

[cisse21]

Can I assume the implementation logic(in user_trans, dest_trans) is exactly same as copied from transformer.go? planning to skip reviewing that part for just skim it through.

Yeah... I just got rid of a few things here and there which are relevant to individual components but yeah in this PR we can assume that it is going to be the same

router transformer will remain as is? it’s only transformation in processor that we’re splitting out rt?

Yes... it is only the processor transformer module we are splitting out

Looks like we’ve not replaced function calls to use the new sendrequest function. do we plan to do that in follow up PR?

That is the only part remaining where I will put it under a flag so that we can switch between older and newer implementation

Are we okay to have types.TransformerEvent as param for all implementations(in ServiceClient -> SendRequest)? Will we lose flexibility to have same struct? or is it going to be same and we choose what to populate in that struct?

Didn't want to make too many changes in one PR but the idea is to abstract out things in this PR and then change the structs with the appropriate data over the subsequent PR's