Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Re-defining a set should not restore its old members #565

Closed
kecso opened this issue Sep 14, 2015 · 0 comments
Closed

Re-defining a set should not restore its old members #565

kecso opened this issue Sep 14, 2015 · 0 comments
Assignees
@kecso
Labels
Bug Core Major
Milestone
v1.0.1

Comments

@kecso
Copy link
Member

kecso commented Sep 14, 2015

  1. define a set
  2. add some members to it
  3. remove the meta-rule
  4. define the set again
    -> the members are still there (though the set was deleted when the rule was removed)
@kecso kecso self-assigned this Sep 14, 2015
@kecso kecso added this to the v1.0.0 milestone Sep 14, 2015
@kecso kecso modified the milestones: v1.1.0, v1.0.0 Sep 25, 2015
kecso added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 1, 2015
@kecso
#565 fixes set visibility issues
a6d6b57 
Now set's are defined on the node's level even in case of inherited set extension, so after the removal of the base type's set it can be visible and extension members can be removed so after re-definition they will not appear.
However if the set in the base is re-defined without touching the instance's set, its members will remain there so become visible (because its data haven't been touched...).
@pmeijer pmeijer closed this as completed in 7297865 Oct 2, 2015
kecso added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 2, 2015
@kecso
#565 fixes set visibility issues
d732dfa 
Now set's are defined on the node's level even in case of inherited set extension, so after the removal of the base type's set it can be visible and extension members can be removed so after re-definition they will not appear.
However if the set in the base is re-defined without touching the instance's set, its members will remain there so become visible (because its data haven't been touched...).
@kecso kecso modified the milestones: v1.0.1, v1.1.0 Oct 2, 2015
kecso added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 8, 2015
@kecso @brollb
#565 fixes set visibility issues
8d7ca00 
Now set's are defined on the node's level even in case of inherited set extension, so after the removal of the base type's set it can be visible and extension members can be removed so after re-definition they will not appear.
However if the set in the base is re-defined without touching the instance's set, its members will remain there so become visible (because its data haven't been touched...).
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@kecso kecso

Labels
Bug Core Major
Projects
None yet
Milestone
v1.0.1
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@kecso