Community
Participate
Working Groups
Say, there is absolutely no RequirementResolvers in the proper registry. And I ask BaseAccessManager to `resolveRequirements` for the following configuration: product = "HappyHalloween" version = "31.10.2019" The AccessManager comes up with the single-entry collection (that itself is not obvious, and either should be documented or reported as a bug). This single entry looks like this: licensing.feature.identifier = "HappyHalloween" licensing.feature.version = "0.0.0" I'd expect "31.10.2019" to be the version. Is this a bug? This is rather a question then an actual bug report. But definitely a piece of documentation must appear as the result.
Well, the initial idea was to handle any illegal state during requrement resolution with creating special instance of LicensingRequirement. Now it does not look perfect and you may want to suggest better contract. Returning version "0.0.0" in your case is a bug
Can we treat `my case` as `there is no resolvers registerd` and fix the issue for that latter?
The construction comes from [BaseAccessmanager, line 148]. Can I just construct version-aware instance here?
Please consider this during API revision
PR: https://github.com/eclipse-passage/passage/pull/186
- `Access`s deals with requirement resolution by means of new `Requirements` unit, which is public only because of tests - `Requirements` unit keeps an eye on the ResolvedRequirements services registry behaviour and returns specially constructed unsatisfiable requirement in case there is no services in the registry.
Verified by `RequirementsTest`
