[MGNLUI-3426] Disable unPublish action in Configuration app for nodes on lvl 1 and 2 Created: 12/May/15  Updated: 25/Nov/15  Resolved: 20/May/15

Status: Closed
Project: Magnolia UI
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: 5.3.9

Type: Bug Priority: Neutral
Reporter: Evzen Fochr Assignee: Evzen Fochr
Resolution: Fixed Votes: 0
Labels: None
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original Estimate: Not Specified

Issue Links:
Cloners
is cloned by MGNLUI-3677 Backport – Disable unPublish action i... Closed
dependency
is depended upon by MAGNOLIA-6205 Add UITest for "Disable deactivation ... Closed
is depended upon by MGNLEE-389 Add UITest for "Disable deactivation ... Closed
relation
is related to MGNLACTIVATION-58 Disable deactivation and enable activ... Closed
is related to MGNLXAA-90 Disable deactivation and enable activ... Closed
Template:
Acceptance criteria:
Empty
Task DoD:
[ ]* Doc/release notes changes? Comment present?
[ ]* Downstream builds green?
[ ]* Solution information and context easily available?
[ ]* Tests
[ ]* FixVersion filled and not yet released
[ ]  Architecture Decision Record (ADR)
Bug DoR:
[ ]* Steps to reproduce, expected, and actual results filled
[ ]* Affected version filled
Date of First Response:

 Comments   
Comment by Mikaël Geljić [ 19/May/15 ]

We've got at least a naming problem with the Rule.

Can we acknowledge that it's only EVER gonna be a feature of the config app? Thus naming it like ConfigProtectedNodeRule or something? —yes keeping the rule suffix is important imo, and then the rule belongs to ui-admincentral, not ui-framework.

Besides, I seriously wonder if the level check makes sense at all, even in MGNLACTIVATION-58.
Don't we simply want to prevent damages to anything matching roughly

/(server|modules)(/[\w\-]*)?
Comment by Evzen Fochr [ 20/May/15 ]

I can rewrite HasDepthBiggerThanTwo.java to HasDepthRule.java to have configurable depth and moreThan/lessThen. And than it can stay in framework ?

Comment by Evzen Fochr [ 20/May/15 ]

Renaming rule to ConfigProtectedNodeRule and moving it to admincentral.

Comment by Mikaël Geljić [ 20/May/15 ]

For the sake of completeness,

  • I still decided to keep it app-specific (and have explicit naming for its usage), the framework doesn't have to care about that.
  • The inner check in the rule may remain depth-based (impl detail), as long as it's right enough—and most of all consistent with MGNLACTIVATION-58, whatever works.

Review:

  • I was not sure about the new package (maybe i.m.config.app.availability?), but it's ok. We will eventually extract the config app to its own module, so we'll relocate the class when we do. Let's just update the rule's javadoc to highlight the purpose, and that's it!
Comment by Evzen Fochr [ 20/May/15 ]

Integration into m5.4 needs to be done after UI test are prepared, so it do not block release of beta.

Generated at Mon Feb 12 09:06:29 CET 2024 using Jira 9.4.2#940002-sha1:46d1a51de284217efdcb32434eab47a99af2938b.