Github user ahgittin commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/pull/462#discussion_r100807828
--- Diff:
core/src/main/java/org/apache/brooklyn/core/config/BasicConfigInheritance.java
---
@@ -82,9 +223,17 @@ public InheritanceMode isInherited(ConfigKey<?> key,
Object from, Object to) {
protected <TContainer, TValue> void
checkInheritanceContext(ConfigValueAtContainer<TContainer, TValue> local,
ConfigInheritanceContext context) {
ConfigInheritance rightInheritance =
ConfigInheritances.findInheritance(local, context, this);
- if (!equals(rightInheritance))
+ if (!isSameRootInstanceAs(rightInheritance)) {
throw new IllegalStateException("Low level inheritance
computation error: caller should invoke on "+rightInheritance+" "
+ "(the inheritance at "+local+"), not "+this);
+ }
+ }
+
+ private boolean isSameRootInstanceAs(ConfigInheritance other) {
+ if (other==null) return false;
+ if (this==other) return true;
+ if (other instanceof DelegatingConfigInheritance) return
isSameRootInstanceAs( ((DelegatingConfigInheritance)other).getDelegate() );
--- End diff --
`equals` would work but it wouldn't catch quite as many errors; it should
be invoked on the same _instance_; have added comment to explain. you're right
dropping the delegate pattern would allow this line to be removed but i think
losing the internal fields in persisted state is worth it.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [email protected] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
