Sebastian Brudziński

Correct, I think this should achieve what we want (edit: maybe it's worth verifying this with one repo only for starters, and then replicating to others if all works as expected)

Correct, I think this should achieve what we want (edit: maybe it's worth verifying this with one repo only for starters, and then replicating to others if all works as expected)

I think we don't want to run this step during releases, but we still want to have it for developer branches (i.e. run it for branches other than master). Thoughts Klaudia Pałkowska Paulina Buzderew...

I think we don't want to run this step during releases, but we still want to have it for developer branches (i.e. run it for branches other than master). Thoughts Klaudia Pałkowska Paulina Buzderewicz?

Looks good to me! I only noticed one typo - left a comment

Looks good to me! I only noticed one typo - left a comment

extensions

extensions

As in MessageKeys - we should never copy other classes/resources from the main module in the extension. If those ever change in the stockmanagement - we break/hide it here.

As in MessageKeys - we should never copy other classes/resources from the main module in the extension. If those ever change in the stockmanagement - we break/hide it here.

The extension module should have access to the classes from the module it extends - we shouldn't be required to copy the classes we need

The extension module should have access to the classes from the module it extends - we shouldn't be required to copy the classes we need

General thought - looking at those tests, at the validators, and at this examplar in general, it's very difficult to find what's the difference between the original version and the extended version...

General thought - looking at those tests, at the validators, and at this examplar in general, it's very difficult to find what's the difference between the original version and the extended version. We should go ahead and completely change those 3 validators and their names.

Some ideas:
NoneValidator - an extension that demonstrates how to switch off one validator completely (it always passes)
OnlyLoggingValidator - an extension to a validator that only prints warning but doesn't fail validation - perhaps difficult to test
NoKitsValidator - a validator that prevents the use of kits - it always fails when kits are used

In general - avoid subtle changes, but demonstrate that you can completely alter the validator

Why do we need this whole file?

Why do we need this whole file?

Why do we need this whole file?

Why do we need this whole file?

Yes - this sounds right

Yes - this sounds right

So essentially, we don't know but it works

So essentially, we don't know but it works

It looks like the test properly covers this problem. Could you explain why this change fixes it though? And why we are using json ignore with json property? Based on javadcos it looks like json ign...

It looks like the test properly covers this problem. Could you explain why this change fixes it though? And why we are using json ignore with json property? Based on javadcos it looks like json ignore has precedence over this - https://fasterxml.github.io/jackson-annotations/javadoc/2.6/com/fasterxml/jackson/annotation/JsonProperty.Access.html

We need an integration test that verifies this problem (this is DoD for each bug)

We need an integration test that verifies this problem (this is DoD for each bug)

Why is it needed?

Why is it needed?

None of those changes should be in our original ref-distro (but we can create alternate docker-compose with those changes)

None of those changes should be in our original ref-distro (but we can create alternate docker-compose with those changes)

This needs to be removed

This needs to be removed

Best if it wasn't referencing a specific file, but since we want to drop example-extension soon, maybe it doesn't matter

Best if it wasn't referencing a specific file, but since we want to drop example-extension soon, maybe it doesn't matter

This needs to be removed

This needs to be removed

OLMIS-6911 Update to SpringBoot2

OLMIS-6911 Update to SpringBoot2