OpenEngSB
  1. OpenEngSB
  2. OPENENGSB-3117

Serialized Models should not contain openengsbModelEntries-field

    Details

    • Type: Bug Bug
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: openengsb-3.0.0.M1
    • Component/s: None
    • Labels:
    • Changelog:
      Hide
      OpenEngSBModel#getOpenEngSBModelEntries() has been renamed to
      OpenEngSBModel#toOpenEngSBModelEntries().
      Show
      OpenEngSBModel#getOpenEngSBModelEntries() has been renamed to OpenEngSBModel#toOpenEngSBModelEntries().
    • Sprint:
      Sprint 4

      Description

      It's not in the WSDL and thus not available in remote connectors, and cannot be parsed.

        Gliffy Diagrams

        No reviews matched the request. Check your Options in the drop-down menu of this sections header.

          Activity

          Hide
          Felix Mayerhuber added a comment -

          I think I found a major flaw here: If the model entries aren't in the JSON message, that also means that the version information of the model isn't in the message ==> the version collision detection isn't working

          Also the File object support will make problems in that way I think. I'm afraid we must think of a solution to send at least the tail with the message.

          Show
          Felix Mayerhuber added a comment - I think I found a major flaw here: If the model entries aren't in the JSON message, that also means that the version information of the model isn't in the message ==> the version collision detection isn't working Also the File object support will make problems in that way I think. I'm afraid we must think of a solution to send at least the tail with the message.
          Hide
          Christoph Gritschenberger added a comment -

          I guess we could re-rename it to "getOpenEngSBModelEntries" again. But then we also need to include a setter.
          JSON-parsers can handle "unexpected fields". But Jackson doesn't like fields without a getter I think.

          Show
          Christoph Gritschenberger added a comment - I guess we could re-rename it to "getOpenEngSBModelEntries" again. But then we also need to include a setter. JSON-parsers can handle "unexpected fields". But Jackson doesn't like fields without a getter I think.
          Hide
          Felix Mayerhuber added a comment -

          I would say we add two new functions:
          getModelTail and setModelTail
          In that way we can easily provide a setter for that, since the tail is an extra field.
          WDYT?

          Show
          Felix Mayerhuber added a comment - I would say we add two new functions: getModelTail and setModelTail In that way we can easily provide a setter for that, since the tail is an extra field. WDYT?
          Hide
          Andreas Pieber added a comment -

          I second Felix on his last idea. Feels sound to me.

          Show
          Andreas Pieber added a comment - I second Felix on his last idea. Feels sound to me.
          Hide
          Christoph Gritschenberger added a comment -

          +1

          Show
          Christoph Gritschenberger added a comment - +1

            People

            • Assignee:
              Christoph Gritschenberger
              Reporter:
              Christoph Gritschenberger
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              3 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved:

                Agile