For now we have a global config which can turn every warning into an
error; then analysers can have a separate config.
The question is where you want to maintain such a setting. In the
feature file where the configuration is and tell the analyser to ignore
it? Or everywhere the feature model is analysed?
Regards
Carsten
On 18.12.2019 11:31, Karl Pauls wrote:
I wouldn't make them errors but warnings - while maybe not
recommended, there certainly are cases out there where metatype
definitions are not containing all options to protect the innocent.
That said, maybe we should consider making the analyser configurable
as to what is considered an error vs. a warning?
regards,
Karl
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:20 AM Robert Munteanu <[email protected]> wrote:
Right, we will probably miss some metatype defintions, and I guess
that's ok.
I would start with only looking at the metatype definitions included in
the bundles, and then trying to match them to the configurations
defined in the file.
The safe things to report (as errors?) would be configuration
properties that:
1. Are defined for a component with a metatype
2. Do not match the list of properties defined in the metatype
How does that sound?
Robert
On Tue, 2019-12-17 at 10:50 +0100, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Makes definitely sense, the big question is where you get the
metadata
from. In the easiest case you have a bundle in your feature which
contains the metadata XML files. But such a bundle could also
"manually"
create the metadata at runtime using the metadata API (we have some
cases like the Apache Felix Jetty implementation for example).
But you also might have a configuration where there is no bundle
declaring the metadata in any way in your feature; either because
there
is no metadata (lazy developer) or it is declared in another feature
(ok, this might be a rare use case and we can probably ignore it)
Regards
Carsten
On 16.12.2019 15:56, David Bosschaert wrote:
Hi Robert,
That sounds like a very nice addition. I think it could be an
additional
Feature Model analyser, that runs as part of the set of analysers.
I don't think it was considered before, could you please file an
issue for
it?
Best regards,
David
On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 at 13:28, Robert Munteanu <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi,
Being a sloppy typist, I often get the configuration values wrong
in
feature model files. I am thinking that validating the
configuration
values defined in a feature model file against the metatype
definition
of the matching components would help a lot.
Is there something like this planned? If not, would it make sense
to
add it to the roadmap?
Thanks,
Robert
--
--
Carsten Ziegeler
Adobe Research Switzerland
[email protected]
