You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@isis.apache.org by "Daniel Keir Haywood (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2020/11/14 12:21:00 UTC
[jira] [Resolved] (ISIS-1709) Inconsistent handling of commands vs
auditing for objects implementing HasTransactionId
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1709?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Daniel Keir Haywood resolved ISIS-1709.
---------------------------------------
Resolution: Invalid
This is now superceded by events - we will always install a CommandFacet as of M5, see for example work ongoing in ISIS-2441 by Andi.
> 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)