Revert policy parsing logic

[andrross]

This PR reverts 3fb09c7 and 17289b7

I believe it is problematic to include GPLv2 code in the same repo as Apache 2.0 licensed code so I'm reverting these commits out of caution until we get approval on a path forward for this code.

Check List

• Functionality includes testing.
• API changes companion pull request created, if applicable.
• Public documentation issue/PR created, if applicable.

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

[reta]

@andrross to note here, we do have GPLv2 licensed components in the codebase, more importantly - we distribute JDK (bundled) and JAXB, that is under GPLv2 license :-)

[github-actions]

❌ Gradle check result for 7340701:

Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

[github-actions]

❌ Gradle check result for 7340701:

Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

[github-actions]

❌ Gradle check result for 7340701:

Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

[github-actions]

❌ Gradle check result for a7ff41e:

Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

[github-actions]

❌ Gradle check result for a7ff41e: FAILURE

Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change?

[github-actions]

❕ Gradle check result for a7ff41e: UNSTABLE

Please review all flaky tests that succeeded after retry and create an issue if one does not already exist to track the flaky failure.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 72.41%. Comparing base (6d53f9d) to head (a7ff41e).
Report is 15 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main   #17703      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     72.40%   72.41%   +0.01%     
- Complexity    65828    65868      +40     
============================================
  Files          5316     5322       +6     
  Lines        305294   305477     +183     
  Branches      44289    44312      +23     
============================================
+ Hits         221033   221199     +166     
+ Misses        66187    66181       -6     
- Partials      18074    18097      +23     

☔ 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.

[reta]

@andrross I think I have a solution on how we could move forward:

• we create another new repository under GPLv2 license, fe opensearch-java-policy
• we release it (under GPLv2) and use binary in OpenSearch core, this is certainly fine (since we use many GPLv2 licensed binaries)

WDYT? Thanks!

[andrross]

@andrross I think I have a solution on how we could move forward:

• we create another new repository under GPLv2 license, fe opensearch-java-policy

• we release it (under GPLv2) and use binary in OpenSearch core, this is certainly fine (since we use many GPLv2 licensed binaries)

WDYT? Thanks!

@reta That's definitely an option, and it's much cleaner than mixing code under a different license in the same repo, but I think we'll still need approval from the technical steering committee to maintain/release a library under a different license within the OpenSearch Project.