Simplify File analysis/validation #378
Conversation
ivarne
force-pushed
the
ivarne/fileAnalyze-validation
branch
from
91bfcd1 to
bf6ec82
Compare
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
CodeQL found more than 20 potential problems in the proposed changes. Check the Files changed tab for more details.
|
ivarne
force-pushed
the
ivarne/fileAnalyze-validation
branch
from
ee5c90f to
577ee8e
Compare
| fileAnalysisResults = await Analyse(dataType, fileStream, fileName); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| bool fileValidationSuccess = true; |
Check warning
Code scanning / CodeQL
Useless assignment to local variable Warning
| List<ValidationIssue> validationIssues = new(); | ||
| if (FileValidationEnabledForDataType(dataType)) | ||
| { | ||
| (fileValidationSuccess, validationIssues) = await Validate(dataType, fileAnalysisResults); |
Check warning
Code scanning / CodeQL
Useless assignment to local variable Warning
|
|
We do not have any issue |
While working on rewriting the interfaces for validation to remove
ModelStateDictionaryand related infrastructure in #369 / #374, I took a look at File validation and think I found something to simplify there as well.This PR has no functional changes, but introduces a new way to registrer file analysers and validators through keyed services, to match the new way of registrering validations.
instead of the more convoluted config where
myValidator.Id => "MY_VALIDATOR"anddatatype.EnabledValidators[]contains"MY_VALIDATOR".I think we should strive to use only one concept to register any type of validator, and the double approach used here is probably not a very good idea.
Note: This PR includes #369, so for review only look at 91bfcd1
Verification
Documentation