Fixed Action building logic in JsonObjectFromPolicyTransformer

[milux]

What this PR changes/adds

Fixes #4838.

Why it does that

The action is wrapped into another action under certain circumstances, which, according to our understanding of the ODRL IM, seems to be an error.

Linked Issue(s)

Closes #4838

[github-actions]

We are always happy to welcome new contributors ❤️ To make things easier for everyone, please make sure to follow our contributors manual, check if you have already signed the ECA, and relate this pull request to an existing issue or discussion.

[jimmarino]

Please see my comments in the issue on how this should be fixed (i.e. it must correspond to the DSP schema),

[paullatzelsperger]

@milux please also respect our process. issues must be triaged before working on them, and you will need a sponsor.
in addition, there are no tests on this, which is a definite death sentence for any PR.

for reference: https://eclipse-edc.github.io/documentation/for-contributors/guidelines/pr-etiquette/

[milux]

@milux please also respect our process. issues must be triaged before working on them, and you will need a sponsor. in addition, there are no tests on this, which is a definite death sentence for any PR.

for reference: https://eclipse-edc.github.io/documentation/for-contributors/guidelines/pr-etiquette/

@paullatzelsperger I would have been happy to adapting any tests covering that code. Since I essentially only removed 2 lines, I can hardly see how this would negatively affect coverage, though.

Since the corresponding issue was already closed, that doesn't matter anymore.

[paullatzelsperger]

I would have been happy to adapting any tests covering that code. Since I essentially only removed 2 lines, I can hardly see how this would negatively affect coverage, though.

It may be a moot point, but still: a change like this always warrants a test. If you can't see that, then that is a problem.

[milux]

It may be a moot point, but still: a change like this always warrants a test. If you can't see that, then that is a problem.

I can perfectly understand that nobody wants contribs that reduce coverage or break existing tests, and my PR did the latter, so my bad.
On the other hand, demanding voluntary contributors to write tests for code that doesn't break any tests because there was no testing coverage to begin with, would be a moot point indeed. I personally wouldn't ask anybody to meet quality standards that I can't uphold myself, but that's your show, so you can demand whatever seems appropriate to you.

[paullatzelsperger]

Writing tests is simply good practice and not up for debate. While our code base might be lacking in that regard (and maybe others) on occasion, it cannot serve as reasoning to not strive to do better. Quite the opposite.