Skip to content

Conversation

@stelfrich
Copy link
Member

Disable the persisting of a ModuleItems if an initialize() method is set and is not empty. This way, initialize() can overwrite the value of a ModuleItem even if persist=true is assumed implicitly.

See:

@ctrueden
Copy link
Member

Did this work well in your tests?

@stelfrich
Copy link
MemberAuthor

It works as I expect it to work after resetting the Prefs. That leaves us with two issues:

  1. If a ModuleItem has been persisted previously, this value will still overwrite initialize()
  2. With this change, explicitly setting persist=true for a ModuleItem that also has initializer set, will disable persisting (that's what we have expected)

I couldn't find any other odd behavior. But as you have already mentioned, we might be breaking someone else's code with this change.

@stelfrich
Copy link
MemberAuthor

With this change, explicitly setting persist=true for a ModuleItem that also has initializer set, will disable persisting (that's what we have expected)

I have added clarifying documentation in Parameter.

importstaticorg.junit.Assert.assertNull;
importstaticorg.junit.Assert.assertSame;

importjava.security.GeneralSecurityException;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

???

@stelfrich
Copy link
MemberAuthor

Thanks for the comments (and being so patient), @ctrueden! They have been addressed.

@ctrueden
Copy link
Member

I gave this a little more thought, and here is what I would like to do:

  • Change persist to a ternary enum: YES, NO and DEFAULT or some such. We can have DEFAULT behave as you have coded here—and in fact, tweak the persistence heuristic as needed for what we deem is most reasonable going forward. If someone says YES, they know better, and want it saved. And similarly, NO means NO. 😉

I would like to include this update as part of the SJC3 release, due within the next few months. There is an sjc3 integration branch containing all such changes, where the above changes should go.

If you have time to tackle it, great. Or if not, I will take care of it before SJC3 is released.

@ctruedenctrueden added this to the 3.0.0 milestone Aug 5, 2016
@stelfrichstelfrichforce-pushed the disable-persist-if-initialize branch from b0fe402 to c9992deCompareAugust 8, 2016 07:22
stelfrichand others added 5 commits August 8, 2016 09:30
Disable the persisting of a ModuleItems if an initialize() method is set and is not empty. This way, initialize() can overwrite the value of a ModuleItem even if persist=true is assumed implicitly. See: * imagej/imagej-legacy#137 (comment)
Introduces the ItemPersistence enum (YES, NO, DEFAULT). YES and NO overwrite additional checks (i.e. precedence of an initializer, value is default value). In case of DEFAULT, the value is persisted only if it is not the default value and no initializer is set.
@stelfrichstelfrichforce-pushed the disable-persist-if-initialize branch 2 times, most recently from 0c50673 to b4e8a32CompareAugust 8, 2016 10:53
@stelfrich
Copy link
MemberAuthor

If you have time to tackle it, great.

I did, @ctrueden. But that invalidates all Commands with bytecode of the previous Parameter implementation, right? How would I test this implementation in an ImageJ2 installation - I am a bit lost here 😕

@ctrueden
Copy link
Member

FYI, my plan is to merge this into the sjc3 branch. Will do soon.

@ctrueden
Copy link
Member

ctrueden commented Feb 1, 2017

Just a quick update: I looked into doing this earlier in January, but the sjc3 branch of scijava-common is quite out of date. It needs a rebase over the latest scijava-common. In particular, all the logging updates are now incompatible with the changes on master as well as the log-revamp branch.

So it will be a while longer before I have time to get all this unified. Probably April. I am anxious to get SJC3 finished and merged, but it's going to be a substantial endeavor.

The good news is that I won't forget about this PR, thanks to its inclusion in the 3.0.0 milestone.

@ctruedenctruedenforce-pushed the master branch 3 times, most recently from 53b6733 to 3dc99c9CompareNovember 7, 2023 18:37
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@stelfrich@ctrueden