-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
Issue #790: Fix entityIdPath #815
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Draft
cbeach47
wants to merge
4
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
bugfix/issue-790/adjust-entity-id-path
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+1,641
−732
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
b08772a
Issue #790: Fix entityIdPath
cbeach47 d127ca2
Issue #790: Breakout tests by endpoints
cbeach47 047ace4
Issue #790: Revise as per PR comments, add initial update transformat…
cbeach47 8c2ed66
Issue #790: Revise as per PR self-review
cbeach47 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why are you using this instead of
check_existing_association? There are cases where ExtendedByDataModelId could be null:There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I didn't like that it was an 'or' condition in
check_existing_association. I felt we should be able to determine what value the ExtendedByDataModelId should be prior to invoking the method.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've been having a hard time trying to determine how we could reverse engineer the ExtendedByDataModelId of the association. I think what I said in my other comment is true that for the OrgLIF and PartnerLIF, these are the cases where ExtendedByDataModelId of the association will not be null:
That 2nd case is difficult to discern. The only thing I can think of to prove this is:
But we're trying to fetch the Association based off of this info, so we don't know yet whether or not it's an extension. I guess if you wanted, you could fetch the Association with the 'or' condition and then check if Extension=true and if it does then check that ExtendedByDataModelId=anchor_data_model_id.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds like from your last paragraph we can determine existance by the query: