fix: Branch blockers API extraction and processing

[ch097711]

Previously, branch_blocker information was parsed from summary.json. However, a previous commit moved the branch_blocker information to branch-blockers.json, but the parsing logic was not updated accordingly. As shown in the figure, this API has no return value.

Therefore, this PR fixes the parsing of branch_blocker data to now be extracted from branch-blockers.json.

[DavidKorczynski]

This looks good. I'm a bit unsure if we should land this because we're having some issues with storage size -- the branch blockers can be quite heavy and we need to watch out for taking up a lot of space.

[ch097711]

I noticed a comment in the extract_local_project_data function that seems to prevent saving blocker information via save_branch_blockers:

    # Dump things we dont want to accummulate.
    #save_branch_blockers(branch_pairs, project_name)

fuzz-introspector/tools/web-fuzzing-introspection/app/static/assets/db/web_db_creator_from_summary.py

Line 462 in b194efb

#save_branch_blockers(branch_pairs, project_name)

However, this line is not commented out in the extract_project_data function:

fuzz-introspector/tools/web-fuzzing-introspection/app/static/assets/db/web_db_creator_from_summary.py

Line 751 in b194efb

save_branch_blockers(branch_pairs, project_name)

If there's still a concern about storage and a need to prevent saving this blocker information, maybe we could comment out all calls to save_branch_blockers. I could then add a note to the documentation for the branch_blockers API to clarify that.

Thanks!

[DavidKorczynski]

If there's still a concern about storage and a need to prevent saving this blocker information, maybe we could comment out all calls to save_branch_blockers. I could then add a note to the documentation for the branch_blockers API to clarify that.

Yeah, there's still a concern. Could you do this though? Then I'll run this locally and do some analysis on the memory consumption -- if it looks good we can enable it

[ch097711]

Yeah, there's still a concern. Could you do this though? Then I'll run this locally and do some analysis on the memory consumption -- if it looks good we can enable it

I've commented out the save_branch_blockers calls and updated the Swagger note for the /api/branch-blockers endpoint.

Thanks!

[DavidKorczynski]

actually, a thing we could do to avoid not providing the data is to lazily fetch the branch blockers in the webapp, could you do this? So that when an API request comes in that uses branch blockers, we'll dynamically fetch it when it's needed