> I think bnd has something like this, right? I can imagine that is we > define a code for a reported issue, we can create mappings based on
Right, there it is just based on some strings so maybe we could do something more defined but essentially something similar. > analyser_code.message_code, e.g. > > metatype-consistency.property-not-in-metatype=WARN Exactly - obviously, that is sidetracking your idea so let's keep it separate. If we start with a WARN then it should be ok as that will allow for the usecase of undeclared properties. regards, Karl > Robert > > > > > regards, > > > > Karl > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:53 AM Carsten Ziegeler < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > 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] > > > > > -- Karl Pauls [email protected]
