fix: a parameter in the rolodex should be evaluated using the index that the node is in

[ThomasRooney]

This fixes vacuum rules that lookup operations in the index where:

1. The original spec (root.yaml) has an external reference to a file in a different directory ./paths/mypath.yaml
2. In that location, there is a relative reference to a path-item in a nearby file, e.g. ./components.yaml#/path-item

What was previously happening in [2] is that the ./components.yaml was being resolved in ./components.yaml (the parent directory) instead of ./paths/components.yaml (the right directory). This resulted in a failure to evaluate path item references and unexpected linting failures.

This changes adjusts the lookup to search through the index's nodeMap to find the location of the YAML $ref node value that's been evaluated. Once we find it, we lookup the associated index of that file and do a seek in that specific index.

We also fix a race condition with resolving the specification asyncronously -- if we are going to an external ref we must do it sequentially as otherwise an index might be added multiple times during an async FindComponent call. This latent bug was exposed as we tested this.

[TristanSpeakEasy]

@ThomasRooney can you add a test to validate the correct behaviour

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.64%. Comparing base (4d074c3) to head (f3ffd1a).
Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #336      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.65%   99.64%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         164      164              
  Lines       16674    16697      +23     
==========================================
+ Hits        16616    16637      +21     
- Misses         53       55       +2     
  Partials        5        5              

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	99.64% <100.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

[ThomasRooney]

Test added. Just fighting a "line count" snapshot test.

[daveshanley]

I am going to test this locally first before I approve, because it looks solid.

If you have fixed this race condition bug, I will owe you a bottle of whiskey.

[daveshanley]

I tested it, seems to work fine - however the bug is still there, when setting ExtractRefsSequentially: false there are still a bunch of un-bundled references.

So, the hunt still continues, but this LGTM.