> On Sept. 30, 2019, 4:36 a.m., Madhan Neethiraj wrote: > > Server side changes look good. However, are the GUI changes necessary (now > > that 'qualifiedName' update is handled at the server side)?
Thanks for your feedback Madhan. When we search using a term, the UI stores this term name in memory so that when we come back to the search tab we again get the same result. The UI change made in this patch is for handling the scenario when we search on a term and then update name of the same term. - Saqeeb ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/71439/#review217980 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Sept. 23, 2019, 6:54 a.m., Saqeeb Shaikh wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/71439/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Sept. 23, 2019, 6:54 a.m.) > > > Review request for atlas, Ashutosh Mestry, Madhan Neethiraj, Nixon Rodrigues, > and Sarath Subramanian. > > > Bugs: ATLAS-3391 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATLAS-3391 > > > Repository: atlas > > > Description > ------- > > When a term (with name T) belonging to glossary (G) is updated to (T1), its > qualified name does not gets updated. Search by term displays qualified names > of the terms, hence old name is seen there. The handling for updating > qualified name was present but since we were copying the qualified name from > the DB object, the handling code never got trigerred. > > This patch also includes required UI side changes. > > > Diffs > ----- > > dashboardv2/public/js/utils/CommonViewFunction.js 85b1a96d > repository/src/main/java/org/apache/atlas/glossary/GlossaryService.java > 9229d2d > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/71439/diff/4/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Manually tested by updating term and searching using the updated term > qualified name. > > > Thanks, > > Saqeeb Shaikh > >
