-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Refactor/osgi rdy #4
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
Conversation
* prepare next development version * remove deprecated class * new snapshot version: test of new model and parser * more testing * add hashcode and equals functions * easier validation, proper logging * check for empty factors, add xml validator, fix: factor values were not properly created * add unit tests and schema resource * unstable update * renamed and added update functionality * formatting * add tests * update methods, slight restructuring * new constructor * add test * set deprecated * updating factor levels will now remove identifiers from old factor levels * add setter for value field * add test * add functionality to return all factos and properties for a single sample * add functionality to keep technology types without attached sample ids
Release/1.6.0
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## development #4 +/- ##
=============================================
Coverage ? 0.00%
=============================================
Files ? 34
Lines ? 1075
Branches ? 237
=============================================
Hits ? 0
Misses ? 1075
Partials ? 0 Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
<groupId>life.qbic</groupId> | ||
<artifactId>parent-pom</artifactId> | ||
<version>2.4.0-SNAPSHOT</version> | ||
<version>3.0.0</version> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
do we want to keep the parent pom? I thought we remove it for osgi projects 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good Catch! However I'd rather keep it in the current state for this PR and remove the Parent Pom in a seperate PR since this PR is pretty big already.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ok, I am fine with that. Good idea to make this in a separate PR. Do you want to write an issue or so, just that we won't forget?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it is really important therefore I want to make sure this really will be tackled at some point
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Left some minor comments. Furthermore, why is the license removed?
Other than that good work.
The license was redrafted(deleted and added seperately) by SF and pushed directly to the master branch. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lvgtm
PR Goal
This PR enables the deployment of the
xml-manager-lib
as an OSGI Bundle and in a non OSGI context by introducing two distinct profiles in thepom.xml
.Additionally it includes the
jaxb-core
dependency which was removed in JDK 11.Additional Note
This PR adds the missing commits that were added directly to master to development to enable uniform development in the future.