refactor(rum): use resolveRumDomainKey from spacecat-shared-rum-api-client

[Kanishkavijay39]

Summary

• Replaces the inline 4-candidate waterfall + timeout loop in rum-config-service.js with the shared resolveRumDomainKey helper from @adobe/spacecat-shared-rum-api-client (added in spacecat-shared#1662)
• updateRumConfig is now a thin wrapper that only owns the save semantics
• Bumps @adobe/spacecat-shared-rum-api-client 2.40.13 → 2.43.1
• Candidate/timeout/fallback coverage moves to the shared package tests; this file's tests now focus solely on save behaviour

Closes SITES-46321

Test plan

• npx mocha test/support/rum-config-service.test.js — 4 tests pass
• npm test — full suite green

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

[MysticatBot]

Hey @Kanishkavijay39,

⚠ Degraded review - no spec document was found for this change (searched the PR links, the touched repos' docs, the architecture/guidelines docs, and linked Jira). This review covers code-level quality but could not validate the change against an agreed design, so confidence is reduced. Add a spec link (PR template section 4) and re-request review for a full-confidence pass.

Verdict: Request changes - one resilience concern to address before merge.
Changes: Replaces inline 4-candidate waterfall + timeout logic with a shared resolveRumDomainKey helper from spacecat-shared-rum-api-client, simplifying the service to own only save semantics (4 files).

Must fix before merge

1. [Important] Missing error boundary around resolveRumDomainKey - src/support/rum-config-service.js:41 (details inline)

Non-blocking (1): minor issues and suggestions

• suggestion: Add a test case for resolveRumDomainKey rejection to document whether crash-propagation or graceful degradation is the intended contract - test/support/rum-config-service.test.js

---

_{Skill: pr-review | Model: us.anthropic.claude-opus-4-6-v1[1m] | Duration: 1m 59s | Cost: $3.50 | Commit: c13a2f8dcbcffe256714f59062bb9fc6bdc6f4e7
If this code review was useful, please react with 👍. Otherwise, react with 👎.}

[MysticatBot]

issue (blocking): The old code wrapped the waterfall in a try/catch that guaranteed updateRumConfig always resolved (returning false on any failure). The new bare await resolveRumDomainKey(site, context) has no error boundary - if the helper throws for an unexpected reason, the exception propagates unhandled.

Note: the shared helper does handle expected errors (timeouts, lookup failures, malformed URLs) internally, so the risk is limited to unexpected internal errors. But the fix is cheap insurance that preserves the function's implicit contract of "always resolves to a boolean."

Suggested fix:

let hasDomainKey = false;
try {
  ({ hasDomainKey } = await resolveRumDomainKey(site, context));
} catch (e) {
  context.log.warn(`[rum-config-service] resolveRumDomainKey failed: ${e.message}`);
}

[github-actions]

This PR will trigger a patch release when merged.

[MysticatBot]

Hey @Kanishkavijay39,

⚠ Degraded review - no spec document was found for this change (searched the PR links, the touched repos' docs, the architecture/guidelines docs, and linked Jira). This review covers code-level quality but could not validate the change against an agreed design, so confidence is reduced. Add a spec link (PR template section 4) and re-request review for a full-confidence pass.

Verdict: Approve - prior concern resolved, clean refactor ready to ship.
Changes: Replaces inline 4-candidate waterfall + timeout logic with a shared resolveRumDomainKey helper from spacecat-shared-rum-api-client, simplifying the service to own only save semantics (4 files).

Previously flagged, now resolved

• Missing error boundary around resolveRumDomainKey - now wrapped in try/catch with warn-level log and graceful fallback to hasDomainKey = false, plus a test covering the rejection path.

---

_{Skill: pr-review | Model: us.anthropic.claude-opus-4-6-v1[1m] | Duration: 0m 44s | Cost: $2.58 | Commit: 3a42a1a34b9db40ff91348c7aa996df270babea4
If this code review was useful, please react with 👍. Otherwise, react with 👎.}