[KULRICE-8219] Services in KIM referencing KRAD dictionary validation service Created: 17/Sep/12 Updated: 30/Oct/12 Resolved: 19/Sep/12
|Project:||Kuali Rice Development|
|Security Level:||Public (Public: Anyone can view)|
|Reporter:||Jerry Neal (Inactive)||Assignee:||Steve Manning (Inactive)|
|Remaining Estimate:||Not Specified|
|Time Spent:||Not Specified|
|Original Estimate:||Not Specified|
|KAI Review Status:||Not Required|
|KTI Review Status:||Not Required|
Performed a review of dictionary validation service usage with Jonathan and found there are two references from KIM (still running in the KNS) that are using the KRAD dictionary validation service. These need to be changed to use the KNS dictionary validation service:
The goal is to not have any KNS code using the constraint logic of KRAD, so they should all be referencing the KNS dictionary validation service. After these two are cleaned up that separation will be achieved.
Also, just one small cleanup item. KualiRuleServiceImpl has a dependency on DictionaryValidationService but is not actually using it. We should remove this to prevent confusion.
|Comment by Peter Giles (Inactive) [ 17/Sep/12 ]|
Hey Jerry, I've already Jira'd this one up I think (although you may have some additional work identified here too), see the linked issue. If you look at the Hierarchy for the KRAD DocumentRuleBase you'll see what I'm talking about. I had a brief thread with Jonathan about this where we had decided to change these over to the KNS DictionaryValidationService in 2.1.3 to give more time for testing w/ that change before the release (See this comment). Obviously, all the testing that KFS has done up to this point of KIM has been using the KRAD DictionaryValidationService. Do you feel that this is a low risk enough change to make pretty close to the release of 2.1.2?
|Comment by Jerry Neal (Inactive) [ 18/Sep/12 ]|
My feeling is the validation of KIM attributes is probably not working correctly, or I don't see how it could be. So I would think we want to get it switched over. But I'll leave it up to the KFS as far as the timing and whether or not they want the change for 2.1.2.
|Comment by Jonathan Keller [ 18/Sep/12 ]|
I don't think we are experiencing any blocker issues regarding this for KFS 5.0. So, I would say to, yes, make the fix, but make it on the main 2.1 branch.
|Comment by Steve Manning (Inactive) [ 21/Sep/12 ]|
|Comment by Jessica Coltrin (Inactive) [ 30/Oct/12 ]|
closing all 2.1.2 Jiras