-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
GH Issue 1257: Check for duplicates among field names, import aliases, and parent import aliases #7884
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
Open
labkey-susanh
wants to merge
4
commits into
develop
Choose a base branch
from
fb_aliasDupes
base: develop
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+61
−2
Open
GH Issue 1257: Check for duplicates among field names, import aliases, and parent import aliases #7884
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
2890a76
GH Issue 1257: Check for duplicates among field names, import aliases…
labkey-susanh 8515fb0
Case-sensitivity checks and more deterministic error reporting
labkey-susanh dcafca2
Move field validation to DomainUtil.validateProperties to be applicab…
labkey-susanh cd4e964
Rearrange and add comment
labkey-susanh 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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.
@cnathe or @XingY. Do you know if this check is still valid? What is the use case where we want to allow retention of an existing alias that conflicts with a field name? Was this to protect against cases where we add (system) domain fields that conflict with already-existing import aliases? Still seems problematic to produce conflicts that we won't be able to resolve well during import.
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 check was added in #894. I guess the intention was to not break existing designer update that was already problematic. I agree in this case we should opt for rejecting ambiguity, even if the designer was not actually changed.