-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 197
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
Correct Dropdown
rendering on undefined zebee:input#source
#824
Conversation
src/provider/cloud-element-templates/cmd/ChangeElementTemplateHandler.js
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/provider/cloud-element-templates/cmd/ChangeElementTemplateHandler.js
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
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.
Great stuff. With this we're now consistent across the board, which is 🏆.
Just two minor remarks (we can ignore these and await user feedback).
b8c95b1
to
6fafca3
Compare
If I understood correctly, it was an easy fix by adding |
6fafca3
to
d826c9f
Compare
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.
I did a roundtrip test with the newly added undefined-input-binding.json
template.
Result:
- Initial binding works fine (fixed in this PR)
- Removing values leads to left-overs though where the expected behavior would be to remove the bindings from XML (similar to initial creation)
However that implies we actually know what we're doing: What exactly are the semantics of input and output bindings?
Let's hold this for a moment though as I try to clarify the direction that we want to head to with Zeebe input bindings, camunda/camunda#11163.
<bpmn:serviceTask id="Activity_1m5q40l" zeebe:modelerTemplate="undefined-input-binding">
<bpmn:extensionElements>
<zeebe:ioMapping>
<zeebe:input source="set-2" target="ignore" />
<zeebe:input target="test" />
<zeebe:output source="test" />
</zeebe:ioMapping>
<zeebe:taskHeaders />
<zeebe:properties>
<zeebe:property name="test" value="" />
</zeebe:properties>
<zeebe:taskDefinition />
</bpmn:extensionElements>
</bpmn:serviceTask>
@smbea Let's proceed regarding the discovery in #824 (review):
Let's update this PR and ensure on removal the whole input / property / ... is being removed, not only the value. This way we are consistent across create + apply + removal. Properly handling task input in a no-magic fashion (camunda/camunda#11163) on the engine side is likely not built upon "empty" inputs ( |
@nikku could you let me know how you reached those leftovers scenario? Was changing between templates? I wasn't able to reproduce it yet |
Related bug, found through #824 (review) and hopefully properly reproducible (against this branch): #830. |
f6ac0d1
to
3bfd063
Compare
test/spec/provider/cloud-element-templates/properties/CustomProperties.spec.js
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
b47370b
to
bb309f4
Compare
As indicated here #830 is a won't fix / not a bug, as I missed
To validate
|
Additional findings of the integration test:
|
This one is also a won't fix, as it does break the optional contract. Actual fix for the (visual) glitch reported via camunda/camunda-modeler#3327 is bpmn-io/properties-panel#203. TLDR: We did not properly convert |
9b6e98a
to
cc4a3b7
Compare
Adresses visual template selection glitch: camunda/camunda-modeler#3327
cc4a3b7
to
76d2953
Compare
zeebe:input/output
/zeebe:property
binding if value is definedDropdown
rendering on undefined zebee:input#source
Updated this PR to contain the properties panel patch bump (cd1b51e) + test improvements only. |
Related to camunda/camunda-modeler#3327, camunda/camunda-modeler#3327 (comment)