-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
Merging of the maps results in incomplete final map, having incorrectly determined entries #17
Comments
@henrykuijpers Thanks for the report. Which one do you mean by
Can you give the concrete version? At least the source maps look all correct to me: |
Hi @kwin , we further debugged the issue. There seems to be an issue with the merging of the maps, and also something with determining whether the parent is more restrictive or not. We're using the following configuration:
There seems to be an issue on this line: The 2 ordinal values that are compared are the same, which causes the item to not be added. This is because the map by default contains 4 entries, including this one: Line 2 in 6b6f079
When the tool checks for the restriction on Later on, checks are done and the |
@henrykuijpers Thanks for the detailed analysis. Indeed the merge does not behave correctly. I think we actually need to keep all maps as is (and don't try to do any premature optimization) and do the check of the actual content classification for each map individually. Then the most restrictive one wins (no matter how long the matched resource type prefix). I will therefore introduce a new |
Don't optimize prematurely, keep both. Each map is evaluated individually and the strictest return value wins Refactoring to separate reading from writing maps This closes #17
Don't optimize prematurely, keep both. Each map is evaluated individually and the strictest return value wins Refactoring to separate reading from writing maps This closes #17
Don't optimize prematurely, keep all maps. Each map is evaluated individually and the strictest return value wins Refactoring to separate reading from writing maps This closes #17
That was incredibly fast! Thank you so much for fixing it! I was thinking of having a go at making a fix and providing a PR, but it would have taken me so much longer. Any idea when the new version can be released? We'd like to use it. :) We're still wondering how volatile the classifications are, and therefore wondering if we should create a new map with every service pack install. |
@henrykuijpers Regarding
Usually those are very stable and won't change in SP updates. But I will soon cross-check for AEM 6.5.13 whether an update is necessary. |
@kwin Tested with @henrykuijpers, your fix works. Thank you for the quick responses! |
@henrykuijpers I now released updated versions of the maps for 6.5.13 and the newest SDK (https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/biz/netcentric/filevault/validator/maps/aem-classification-map-repo-annotations/) because there were indeed some changes from the previous maps. |
@kwin I smoke tested the 6.5.13 list a bit, it looks good to me! I noticed there was 1 node that was removed from AEM 6.5.13 and thus is not in the list (was on the list as Thank you so much for all the updates! |
Using AEM 6.5.13 and the latest aem-content-classifications jar, we get:
But, AEM's repository says:
What is the recommended approach to using this tooling? To reference the JAR files, or to always generate the maps yourself and reference the generated maps? (When we generate a new map based on our 6.5.13 instance, we do get the correct classifications, where it also says that /libs/granite/ui/components/coral/foundation/form/field is PUBLIC, instead fo INTERNAL.)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: