[jira] [Updated] (ISIS-1709) [INVALID] Inconsistent handling of commands vs auditing for objects implementing HasTransactionId

["Daniel Keir Haywood (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org>]

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1709?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Daniel Keir Haywood updated ISIS-1709:
--------------------------------------
    Summary: [INVALID] Inconsistent handling of commands vs auditing for objects implementing HasTransactionId  (was: Inconsistent handling of commands vs auditing for objects implementing HasTransactionId)

> [INVALID] Inconsistent handling of commands vs auditing for objects implementing HasTransactionId
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ISIS-1709
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1709
>             Project: Isis
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Isis Core
>    Affects Versions: 1.15.0
>            Reporter: Daniel Keir Haywood
>            Assignee: Daniel Keir Haywood
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 2.0.0-M5
>
>
> Noticed that if 
> ApplicationUser#updateEmailAddress(...)
> with 
> isis.services.audit.objects=none
> isis.services.command.actions=none
> then  do get a Command persisted, but don't get any audit records persisted.
> The auditing behaviour is correct, but the command behaviour is wrong.
> What seems to happen is that no CommandFacet is installed (ActionAnnotationFacetFactory#processCommand), and then in the ObjectMemberAbstract because there is no command facet it defaults to 
> "// if no facet, assume do want to execute right now, but only persist (eventually) if hinted."
> My guess is that the hinting does occur (PersistenceSession#completeCommandFromInteractionAndClearDomainEvents as objects are dirtied.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)