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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
FM2-653 #556
FM2-653 #556
Changes from 4 commits
5b94f18
c46ba07
e5b00bd
9319b83
90ec5dd
29a5cb0
47d35d7
19723f0
b1efbfb
be996fe
370d392
aafa52a
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
Basically, I use a succession of joins to go back up the ancestor tree. A bit annoying/hacky, but from a practical matter, seems unlikely there would ever be a hierarchy of more than 9 levels. We could make this a configurable parameter if we wanted.
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.
Maybe we turn this into a GP? That way an implementation can adjust it to the actual depth of their location hierarchy.
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.
Fair enough, I will do that (and since it's configurable, set a more normal default of like 5)
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.
So it sounds like @ibacher this extra parameter should not be here, and this new functionality should just be part of the "SP_PARTOF" parameter above? I was having a problem with that, see my follow on comment and screenshot in the test case below.
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.
The tl;dr is that if I change this to name="partof:below" any parameter passed in that way gets assigned to both the ReferenceAndListParam ancestor and ReferenceAndListParam parent.
And if I remove the "below" parameter, I'm not quite sure how to parse the "parent" ReferenceAndListParam to tell if this should be a standard "partof" vs a "partof:below"
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.
Ideally, yes.
That's very problematic. The problem is that
partof=123abc&partof:below=456def
is technically valid and I'm not quite sure what HAPI would do with that...