Update javadoc to indicate composite view returned or not

[kevinrr888]

closes #4038

InstanceOperations:
Did not find any changes needed to be made:

• modifyProperties() returns non-composite (System level only) view as
  stated in the javadocs
• getSystemConfiguration() returns composite view as stated in the
  javadocs
• getSiteConfiguration() returns non-composite (Site level only) view as
  stated in the javadocs

NamespaceOperations:

• modifyProperties() returns non-composite (Namespace level only) view
  as stated in the javadocs (no changes here)
• getProperties() returns a composite view. Updated javadocs.
• getConfiguration() returns a composite view. Updated javadocs.
• getNamespaceProperties() returns a non-composite (Namespace level
  only) view. Updated javadocs.

TableOperations:

• modifyProperties() returns non-composite (Table level only) view
  as stated in the javadocs (no changes here)
• getProperties() returns a composite view. Updated javadocs.
• getConfiguration() returns a composite view. Updated javadocs.
• getTableProperties() returns a non-composite (Table level
  only) view. Updated javadocs.

No other methods were applicable.

[EdColeman]

Do you have extra files in this commit? It looks like you may have include the changes for ScanConsistencyIT.

[kevinrr888]

I think I must have branched off my other feature branch, not main. Working on fix

[ctubbsii]

I made one suggestion in one place, but it might apply to other places as well... I just wasn't going to be comment the same thing in multiple places.

It looks like this is targeting the main branch. The PR should be targeting the 2.1 branch instead, as these methods exist there as well.

[EdColeman]

I don't feel that the This new method... lines should be included. They would only be valid for one version, until the are no longer "new". IDE's will highlight the return type when someone tries to use it. Feel free to ignore if it does seem useful and I'm missing that context.

[kevinrr888]

Yes I agree. I found it strange that "new" was included. It was already present and I didn't want to make any unwanted changes. I'll remove it

[kevinrr888]

Changed to target 2.1 branch, not main

[ctubbsii]

It seemed odd that this didn't include changes to InstanceOperations, so I went and looked and it seems we don't have a method to retrieve the non-merged view of the system configuration like we do for namespace and tables. That's a frustrating inconsistency, but it shouldn't be added in a bugfix release. It can be addressed in 3.1, separate from this javadoc update, if we want to add that.

[kevinrr888]

It seemed odd that this didn't include changes to InstanceOperations, so I went and looked and it seems we don't have a method to retrieve the non-merged view of the system configuration like we do for namespace and tables. That's a frustrating inconsistency, but it shouldn't be added in a bugfix release. It can be addressed in 3.1, separate from this javadoc update, if we want to add that.

Yeah, I was also wondering that. Let me know if you think I should open an issue for that

[keith-turner]

@ctubbsii are you ok with these changes now?

[ctubbsii]

@keith-turner asked:

@ctubbsii are you ok with these changes now?

Yeah, seems fine. My previous rejection was only because of the need to change the base branch to 2.1.

I see my suggested wording about the parent configuration was also added, but after looking at it in context, I'm wondering if it should say "with its parent configuration" rather than "from its parent configuration". Regardless, I'm fine with these changes, with or without additional tweaks to that phrasing.

[kevinrr888]

I also think 'with' is better. Changed