Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 335482

Summary:

validatorV2 extension point schema doesn't explain include/exclude rules well

Product:

[WebTools] WTP Common Tools

Reporter:

Ivan Castro <ivanc>

Component:

wst.validation

Assignee:

Salvador Zalapa <zalapa>

Status:

CLOSED FIXED

QA Contact:

Chuck Bridgham <cbridgha>

Severity:

normal

Priority:

CC:

ccc, david_williams, keith.chong.ca, raghunathan.srinivasan

Version:

3.2

Flags:

david_williams: pmc_approved+
raghunathan.srinivasan: pmc_approved+
ccc: pmc_approved? (naci.dai)
ccc: pmc_approved? (deboer)
ccc: pmc_approved? (neil.hauge)
ccc: pmc_approved? (kaloyan)
ccc: review+
cbridgha: review+

Target Milestone:

3.2.3

Hardware:

OS:

All

Whiteboard:

PMC_approved

Attachments:

Description	Flags
Source patch for suggested fix	ccc: iplog+

Description Ivan Castro

2011-01-26 13:21:02 EST

Build Identifier: M20101210-0800

Currently only some of the include/exclude rules will prevent validators from being loaded.  Ideally, all of them should prevent loading validators that do not apply, but in the meantime, the extension point schema should be updated to clearly indicate which ones will actually prevent the validator from being loaded, and which ones will not.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Use the V2 validator extension point for a customized validator
2.Specify include and exclude rules other than "Project Nature" and "Facet" in the customized validator.
3.Notice that the rules provided in the Include and Exclude elements do not make any difference in activating or deactivating the validator for your resources.

Comment 1 Ivan Castro

2011-01-26 13:25:46 EST

1.Explain why you believe this is a stop-ship defect. Or, if it is a "hotbug" (requested by an adopter) please document it as such. 

* This is an adopter requested change.

2.Is there a work-around? If so, why do you believe the work-around is insufficient? 
No workaround since the description is somehow vague which causes confusion.

3.How has the fix been tested? Is there a test case attached to the bugzilla record? Has a JUnit Test been added? 
This is a non-code change that improves documentation. No functional testing needed.

4.Give a brief technical overview. Who has reviewed this fix? 
Non-code change that improves documentation on use of Include and Exclude validator rules.
Keith Chong and Justin Berstler have reviewed this fix.

5.What is the risk associated with this fix? 
Very low risk

Comment 2 Ivan Castro

2011-01-26 13:27:52 EST

Created attachment 187665 [details]
Source patch for suggested fix

Comment 3 Keith Chong

2011-01-26 13:32:17 EST

An adopter is requesting this for 3.2.3.

Comment 4 Chuck Bridgham

2011-01-26 15:27:34 EST

I approve

Comment 5 David Williams

2011-01-26 15:56:17 EST

I'll approve this one ... but normally it seems that "doc fixes" would not go in maintenance release, or at least not the ramp down phase. I really do not have a problem with this one fix ... just "cautioning" we need to start thinking in terms of minimal changes.

Comment 6 Carl Anderson

2011-01-27 14:11:42 EST

Committed to R3_2_maintenance

Comment 7 Ivan Castro

2011-01-27 16:49:15 EST

Verified in Smoke Test R323 01272011.

Comment 8 Ivan Castro

2011-01-27 16:49:57 EST

Closing...