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
WINDUP-223: Support executeBefore()/executeBeforeIDs() and executeAfter(... #214
Conversation
Also covering JIRA: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WINDUP-160 |
@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ private void logTimeTakenByPhase(GraphContext graphContext, RulePhase phase, int | |||
{ | |||
RulePhaseExecutionStatisticsModel model = graphContext.getService(RulePhaseExecutionStatisticsModel.class) | |||
.create(); | |||
model.setRulePhase(phase.toString()); | |||
model.setRulePhase(phase == null ? "Implicit" : phase.toString()); |
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.
Seems like "Implicit" should be a constant somewhere?
…er()/executeAfterIDs() for provider ordering
Ok, switched to using RulePhase.IMPLICIT (instead of null) and also defaulted getPhase() to MIGRATION_RULES. |
} | ||
|
||
@SuppressWarnings("unchecked") | ||
private <T> Class<T> unwrapType(Class<T> wrapped) |
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.
Is this something new? Why do we need this "now"? Just curious.
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.
This was there before, but I think in a less clear way.
WINDUP-223: Support executeBefore()/executeBeforeIDs() and executeAfter(...
...)/executeAfterIDs() for provider ordering
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WINDUP-223
Also:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WINDUP-160