adfemg
  1. adfemg
  2. ADFEMG-57

ER : 12731468 : PROVIDE OPTION TO SHAPE WHAT GOES INTO AN ADF LIBRARY

    Details

    • Type: Bug Bug
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Won't Fix
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      hi

      Please consider enhancement request 12731468, "PROVIDE OPTION TO SHAPE WHAT GOES INTO AN ADF LIBRARY".

      I pointed to this ER 12731468 on the OTN forums before [1] in the context of forum thread "JUnit test classes in ADF Library" [2].

      In ER 12731468 itself there are also aspects mentioned like

      • "... If however the JDeveloper project contains more than skin definitions then there is no option available to "shape" the ADF Library to only contain the skin definition and configuration. ... "
      • "... If I have 2 task flows and one of them should go into an ADF Library for reuse then there is no option (other than hiding) available to exclude the other task flow from moving into the ADF Library. ..."

      The ER 12731468 was created by Frank Nimphius commenting "I agree, there is a missing feature in the ADF Library deployment profile to exclude certain content." [3].

      Recently I noticed some updates in ER 12731468 but not all comments were published so the conversation is hard to follow.
      I was wondering if someone could update this JIRA issue with a summary of what lead to "Status 97 - Suggestion Rejected":

      *** 09/11/12 08:39 pm *** (CHG: Sta->97)
      *** 09/11/12 08:39 pm RESPONSE ***
      Raised ER 14613434 subsequent to our discussions and marked this ER status 97.
      

      The mentioned ER 14613434 does currently not seem to be available/published on My Oracle Support [4].

      many thanks
      Jan Vervecken

        Activity

        Hide
        chriscmuir added a comment -

        ER 14613434 now published. Might be a delay in it becoming visible.

        Show
        chriscmuir added a comment - ER 14613434 now published. Might be a delay in it becoming visible.
        Hide
        Jan Vervecken added a comment -

        Thanks for your reply Chris.

        On My Oracle Support I have been able to find enhancement request 14613434, "PROVIDE OPTION TO EXCLUDE TEST CODE FROM ADF LIBRARY".

        There is not much detail visible in ER 14613434, and its title/abstract suggests a much more limited scope than ER 12731468, and seems to imply much less flexibility.

        So my question remains:

        • (q1) Which arguments lead to "Status 97 - Suggestion Rejected" in ER 12731468?

        many thanks
        Jan Vervecken

        Show
        Jan Vervecken added a comment - Thanks for your reply Chris. On My Oracle Support I have been able to find enhancement request 14613434, "PROVIDE OPTION TO EXCLUDE TEST CODE FROM ADF LIBRARY". There is not much detail visible in ER 14613434, and its title/abstract suggests a much more limited scope than ER 12731468, and seems to imply much less flexibility. So my question remains: (q1) Which arguments lead to "Status 97 - Suggestion Rejected" in ER 12731468? many thanks Jan Vervecken
        Hide
        chriscmuir added a comment -

        Regards ER 12731468 an exert from ER 14613434 gives the best summary:

        @ In ER 12731468 it was decided it was not desirable to allow developers to
        @ shape the content of an ADF Library via the deployment profile similar to JAR
        @ files as the cost and risk of developers accidentally excluding critical
        @ files from the ADF Library JAR then having to debug it was too high.

        Note the decision here by the internal dev management team is final and wont be reinspected.

        ER 14613434 is the continuation of at least part of the requirement:

        @ This ER is an extension from ER 12731468.
        @ .
        @ In ER 12731468 it was decided it was not desirable to allow developers to
        @ shape the content of an ADF Library via the deployment profile similar to JAR
        @ files as the cost and risk of developers accidentally excluding critical
        @ files from the ADF Library JAR then having to debug it was too high.
        @ .
        @ However the primary use case identified for excluding content from the ADF
        @ Library JAR was "test" code such as JUnit tests which ideally we don't want
        @ to deploy with our deployment artefacts as it unnecessarily bloats the JARs.
        @ <censored> have agreed this would be useful and as such forms the basis
        @ for the business need for this ER beyond just the request from external
        @ customers.
        @ .
        @ Of note there is a general conventions thanks to Maven where tests code
        @ should go, that being under /src/test/*:
        @ http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-the-standard-directory-layout.html
        @ .
        @ It would seem reasonable with our new found follow-the-Maven-philosophy in
        @ our tooling it would be an idea to follow the Maven convention for where we
        @ expect test code to reside within a project and this is what we can exclude.
        @ Presumably we should provide an option in the ADF Library deployment profiles
        @ to turn include the test code with options on/off, and to be backwards
        @ compatible this should be on by default.

        At this stage there has been no further progress on this ER since September 2012 and I'll revisit the opportunity to progress.

        Show
        chriscmuir added a comment - Regards ER 12731468 an exert from ER 14613434 gives the best summary: @ In ER 12731468 it was decided it was not desirable to allow developers to @ shape the content of an ADF Library via the deployment profile similar to JAR @ files as the cost and risk of developers accidentally excluding critical @ files from the ADF Library JAR then having to debug it was too high. Note the decision here by the internal dev management team is final and wont be reinspected. ER 14613434 is the continuation of at least part of the requirement: @ This ER is an extension from ER 12731468. @ . @ In ER 12731468 it was decided it was not desirable to allow developers to @ shape the content of an ADF Library via the deployment profile similar to JAR @ files as the cost and risk of developers accidentally excluding critical @ files from the ADF Library JAR then having to debug it was too high. @ . @ However the primary use case identified for excluding content from the ADF @ Library JAR was "test" code such as JUnit tests which ideally we don't want @ to deploy with our deployment artefacts as it unnecessarily bloats the JARs. @ <censored> have agreed this would be useful and as such forms the basis @ for the business need for this ER beyond just the request from external @ customers. @ . @ Of note there is a general conventions thanks to Maven where tests code @ should go, that being under /src/test/*: @ http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-the-standard-directory-layout.html @ . @ It would seem reasonable with our new found follow-the-Maven-philosophy in @ our tooling it would be an idea to follow the Maven convention for where we @ expect test code to reside within a project and this is what we can exclude. @ Presumably we should provide an option in the ADF Library deployment profiles @ to turn include the test code with options on/off, and to be backwards @ compatible this should be on by default. At this stage there has been no further progress on this ER since September 2012 and I'll revisit the opportunity to progress.
        Hide
        Jan Vervecken added a comment -

        Thank you for the update Chris.

        • about (q1) and "In ER 12731468 it was decided it was not desirable ... as the cost and risk of developers accidentally excluding critical files from the ADF Library JAR ..."
          • To me this looks like something that can be covered with sufficient warning-dialogs while doing so ... in a more "productivity with choice" spirit.

        Thanks for sharing some details of ER 14613434.

        • about "... the primary use case identified for excluding content from the ADF Library JAR was "test" code such as JUnit tests ..."
          • Correct.

        regards
        Jan Vervecken

        Show
        Jan Vervecken added a comment - Thank you for the update Chris. about (q1) and "In ER 12731468 it was decided it was not desirable ... as the cost and risk of developers accidentally excluding critical files from the ADF Library JAR ..." To me this looks like something that can be covered with sufficient warning-dialogs while doing so ... in a more "productivity with choice" spirit. Thanks for sharing some details of ER 14613434. about "... the primary use case identified for excluding content from the ADF Library JAR was "test" code such as JUnit tests ..." Correct. regards Jan Vervecken
        Hide
        chriscmuir added a comment -

        "To me this looks like something that can be covered with sufficient warning-dialogs while doing so ... in a more "productivity with choice" spirit."

        Maybe so, but my comment stands "Note the decision here by the internal dev management team is final and wont be reinspected."

        CM.

        Show
        chriscmuir added a comment - "To me this looks like something that can be covered with sufficient warning-dialogs while doing so ... in a more "productivity with choice" spirit." Maybe so, but my comment stands "Note the decision here by the internal dev management team is final and wont be reinspected." CM.
        Hide
        chriscmuir added a comment -

        Jan, can we move this to a non-open status so I don't continue to recheck progress please?

        CM.

        Show
        chriscmuir added a comment - Jan, can we move this to a non-open status so I don't continue to recheck progress please? CM.
        Hide
        chriscmuir added a comment -

        As per last comment. Closing issue.

        CM.

        Show
        chriscmuir added a comment - As per last comment. Closing issue. CM.

          People

          • Assignee:
            Unassigned
            Reporter:
            Jan Vervecken
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            0 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: