New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Summary widget identifiers 1858 #1859

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Jan 3, 2018

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@larkin
Member

larkin commented Jan 2, 2018

Use objectUtils to get a proper legacy id so that namespaces are
properly handled. Fixes #1858

Author Checklist

  1. Changes address original issue? Y
  2. Unit tests included and/or updated with changes? Y
  3. Command line build passes? Y
  4. Changes have been smoke-tested? Y

larkin added some commits Jan 2, 2018

[SummaryWidget] Use objectutil to get legacy id
Use objectUtils to get a proper legacy id so that namespaces are
properly handled.  Fixes #1858

@larkin larkin requested review from akhenry and VWoeltjen Jan 2, 2018

@larkin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@larkin

larkin Jan 2, 2018

Member

There's still another oddity here: the create action instantiates objects within the currently navigated object's namespace-- even if it's an immutable namespace. Summary widgets will re-request this object as an old-style domain object, and as a result the namespace object provider could get a request for an object it doesn't know how to provide. (e.g. the VISTA object provider gets a request for a summary widget).

I think Open MCT should intercept the request for the object (e.g. it should fetch it from the current transaction) instead of sending an invalid request to the object provider.

Member

larkin commented Jan 2, 2018

There's still another oddity here: the create action instantiates objects within the currently navigated object's namespace-- even if it's an immutable namespace. Summary widgets will re-request this object as an old-style domain object, and as a result the namespace object provider could get a request for an object it doesn't know how to provide. (e.g. the VISTA object provider gets a request for a summary widget).

I think Open MCT should intercept the request for the object (e.g. it should fetch it from the current transaction) instead of sending an invalid request to the object provider.

@VWoeltjen

LGTM!

@VWoeltjen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@VWoeltjen

VWoeltjen Jan 3, 2018

Contributor

Reviewer Checklist

  1. Changes appear to address issue? Y
  2. Appropriate unit tests included? Y!
  3. Code style and in-line documentation are appropriate? Y
  4. Commit messages meet standards? Y
Contributor

VWoeltjen commented Jan 3, 2018

Reviewer Checklist

  1. Changes appear to address issue? Y
  2. Appropriate unit tests included? Y!
  3. Code style and in-line documentation are appropriate? Y
  4. Commit messages meet standards? Y

@VWoeltjen VWoeltjen merged commit 3f1b7e0 into master Jan 3, 2018

1 check passed

ci/circleci Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment