[jpa] Support state filter when querying

[ccutrer]

Depends on openhab/openhab-core#5106.

And since I'm using that, do some cleanup in all persistence services to use the newly-available Operator.getSymbol method when possible, as well as FilterCriteria.toString instead of custom implementations. They're used for debug logging, so the exact format changing shouldn't be important.

[lsiepel]

Needs spotless, otherwise LGTM

[lsiepel]

Thanks, LGTM

[lo92fr]

Hello all,

This PR seems to have broke the dynamoDb unit test ?
See : https://community.openhab.org/t/openhab-cloud-issue/167253/8
and : https://ci.openhab.org/job/openHAB-Addons/1970/testReport/

Laurent.

[lsiepel]

The core changes now point to the Operator class:

public enum Operator {
        EQ("="),
        NEQ("!="),
        GT(">"),
        LT("<"),
        GTE(">="),
        LTE("<=");

Looking at this PR again. It does not seem to match the implementation as it was for dynamodb: (especially NEQ) I think we need some override or custom replacement. Quick fix: filter.getOperator().getSymbol().replace("!=","<>")

private static String operatorAsString(Operator op) {
        switch (op) {
            case EQ:
                return "=";
            case NEQ:
                return "<>";
            case LT:
                return "<";
            case LTE:
                return "<=";
            case GT:
                return ">";
            case GTE:
                return ">=";

            default:
                throw new IllegalStateException("Unknown operator " + op);
        }
    }

[ccutrer]

🤦 I don't know how I overlooked that. I properly handled the same case for InfluxDB. I'm also surprised and confused how the build passed for this PR at all. I know I ran the tests locally too, but I was able to reproduce with the tests immediately today. 🤷. Regardless, #19680 is the fix.

[lsiepel]

I properly handled the same case for InfluxDB. I'm also surprised and confused how the build passed for this PR at all. I know

No worries, thanks for the quick fix!

[lo92fr]

Thanks for the fix @ccutrer.

I think build chain is a little misunderstanding in this case.
It put the build in state Unstable, but not failing clearly (that could be ok if only some test are failing).
And the other build continue to work as if everything where ok (at least on Jenkins side), but not getting the latest artifacts.
Don't look if error was more clear on Github actions side, but not really sure.
Perhaps something that can be enhance in future to help prevent this case.