Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.
Bug 335482 - validatorV2 extension point schema doesn't explain include/exclude rules well
Summary: validatorV2 extension point schema doesn't explain include/exclude rules well
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: WTP Common Tools
Classification: WebTools
Component: wst.validation (show other bugs)
Version: 3.2   Edit
Hardware: PC All
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.2.3   Edit
Assignee: Salvador Zalapa CLA
QA Contact: Chuck Bridgham CLA
URL:
Whiteboard: PMC_approved
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-01-26 13:21 EST by Ivan Castro CLA
Modified: 2011-01-29 12:38 EST (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
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+

Attachments
Source patch for suggested fix (5.54 KB, patch)
2011-01-26 13:27 EST, Ivan Castro CLA 		ccc: iplog+
Details | Diff
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Ivan Castro CLA 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 CLA 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 CLA 2011-01-26 13:27:52 EST 
Created attachment 187665 [details]
Source patch for suggested fix
Comment 3 Keith Chong CLA 2011-01-26 13:32:17 EST 
An adopter is requesting this for 3.2.3.
Comment 4 Chuck Bridgham CLA 2011-01-26 15:27:34 EST 
I approve
Comment 5 David Williams CLA 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 CLA 2011-01-27 14:11:42 EST 
Committed to R3_2_maintenance
Comment 7 Ivan Castro CLA 2011-01-27 16:49:15 EST 
Verified in Smoke Test R323 01272011.
Comment 8 Ivan Castro CLA 2011-01-27 16:49:57 EST 
Closing...