-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 60
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
Completed description of links object #2
Merged
d-stahl-ericsson
merged 6 commits into
eiffel-community:topic-drop1
from
d-stahl-ericsson:topic-drop1-completelinks
May 10, 2016
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
4def66d
Completed description of links object
d-stahl-ericsson 45dc4c7
Fixed copy-paste mishap.
d-stahl-ericsson 9c2e4f2
Changed links.previous to links.previousVersions.
d-stahl-ericsson c4883f3
Clarified relationship between links.activityExecution and links.context
d-stahl-ericsson adf395e
Split links.previousActivityExectuion from links.previousVersions
d-stahl-ericsson 3a6f475
Removed incorrect link targets.
d-stahl-ericsson File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
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.
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.
This opens up for the possibility of having "undefined" artifacts, i.e. artifacts we do not know the contents of.
Or maybe "Optional in" should be expressed in using some other wording, e.g. "Expected in" or something like it.
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.
Yes. I think that's perfectly acceptable? If you don't want to/can't define it, then you shouldn't have to. But when you do, it should be unambiguously clear how it's done.
This goes back to a more general principle: I don't think it's a major problem to be rather generous with optional fields: missing information is a lot easier to deal with than ambiguous information.
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 have no problem with the general principle. It's the word "optional" that I think may be an issue. To me it's a bit "too loose". Somehow the intention of linking events is "lost". It's sort of the difference between SHOULD and MAY.