-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 245
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
refactor(policy): provide new contexts and function interfaces for policy engine #4542
refactor(policy): provide new contexts and function interfaces for policy engine #4542
Conversation
85fafd7
to
7f9b987
Compare
7f9b987
to
5d675ef
Compare
...spi/src/main/java/org/eclipse/edc/policy/engine/spi/DynamicAtomicConstraintRuleFunction.java
Dismissed
Show dismissed
Hide dismissed
...spi/src/main/java/org/eclipse/edc/policy/engine/spi/DynamicAtomicConstraintRuleFunction.java
Dismissed
Show dismissed
Hide dismissed
...spi/src/main/java/org/eclipse/edc/policy/engine/spi/DynamicAtomicConstraintRuleFunction.java
Dismissed
Show dismissed
Hide dismissed
...spi/src/main/java/org/eclipse/edc/policy/engine/spi/DynamicAtomicConstraintRuleFunction.java
Dismissed
Show dismissed
Hide dismissed
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.
One comment about the dependencies
@@ -17,14 +17,15 @@ plugins { | |||
} | |||
|
|||
dependencies { | |||
implementation(project(":spi:common:validator-spi")) | |||
implementation(project(":spi:control-plane:control-plane-spi")) | |||
api(project(":spi:common:boot-spi")) |
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.
Why are these exposed as APIs? They are not needed to extend this module.
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.
must have been some rebase/pr split issue, will remove it
ok, gotcha in a core module no need to have api
dependencies.
I think we never put down a clear statement on how these needs to be set.
Could it be that only spi
modules should expose other spi
as api
? otherwise implementation
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.
I think a module should only expose another module as an api
if it is transitively exposed to interact with it, e.g. an SPI interface references a type from the other module.
0c31c17
to
146a231
Compare
What this PR changes/adds
Given that #4535 is really huge, I extracted a smaller PR, that takes care of:
PolicyContext
implementationWhy it does that
help the review process
Further notes
List other areas of code that have changed but are not necessarily linked to the main feature. This could be method
signature changes, package declarations, bugs that were encountered and were fixed inline, etc.
Linked Issue(s)
Part of #3511
Please be sure to take a look at the contributing guidelines and our etiquette for pull requests.