|
||||||||
|
This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira |
||||||||
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite! It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production. Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________ Dspace-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-devel
I realize that the situation I wrote is wrong. The correct situation that the changed confidence value is not set is as follows:
a) the value is not changed.
b) the authority is null and is not changed
c) the confidence is changed
That the confidence value is not set is only a case where the authority is null. If
the authority is set and not changed, then the changed confidence value is set correctly.
For simplicity, define the individual conditions in the if-clause as follows:
A: dcv.authority == null && auth == null
B: dcv.authority != null && auth != null && dcv.authority.equals(auth)
C: dcv.confidence == conf
The current code is: !(A || (B && C))
and my patch is: !((A || B) && C)
In general, authority and confidence are set in parallel, so I now think that
the current code is more reasonable. I wanted to indicate with setting
the confidence that the authority is null, but it may be not a normal
use-case.
However, I sent a pull request.
Pull request: https://github.com/DSpace/DSpace/pull/270