All work
- Rethink source/mapper/script relationsPRIS-121Markus Neumann
- Create "emergency brake" script stepPRIS-106Resolved issue: PRIS-106Markus Neumann
- Example script for renameRequisition.groovy has a wrong namePRIS-61Resolved issue: PRIS-61Markus Neumann
- Change Script-Steps to Steps that can be Scripts or provided Java-ClassesPRIS-41Markus Neumann
- Sample configuration should have echo.mapper instead of null.mapperPRIS-35Resolved issue: PRIS-35Markus Neumann
Rethink source/mapper/script relations
Description
Attachments
Lucidchart Diagrams
Details
Assignee
Markus NeumannMarkus NeumannReporter
fookerfookerComponents
Affects versions
Priority
Major
Details
Details
Assignee
Reporter
Components
Affects versions
Priority
MajorPagerDuty
PagerDuty
PagerDuty
Activity
fookerDecember 10, 2014 at 9:58 AMEdited
Currently the configuration allows to specify a XLS source and an OCS mapper. Mixing in scripts makes the problem even worse.
The idea is to have chains of processors whereas each processor can modifies an existing requisition. To get the data for these modifications, a processor can have multiple sources.
The big difference is, each processor defines it's own contract to the used sources - it still allows to exchange different implementations for a source but permits mixing of sources and processors not compatible.
Markus NeumannDecember 10, 2014 at 8:23 AM
I'm not sure where this is heading, but the basic idea of the split between sources and mappers is very simple. It just helps to split the "get the data" step from the "map the data" step. If you take OCS as an example, there you can flip the mapping of your data without any changes or binding of the source. The source just returns the OCS-Model.
Yes there is no strict contract between sources and mappers. The reason is/was that the mapper should be able to access the original datamodel and not an already burned down Requisition. Your rethink looks more focused on merging related problems.
fookerDecember 10, 2014 at 2:17 AM
Slightly updaed version
fookerDecember 9, 2014 at 7:19 PM
Idea for better structure
Currently, the source and the mapper do not have any contract passing data from the source to the mapper. The exchanged data type exported by the source must match the expectations of the mapper.
As not all combinations of sources and mappers are valid, the user has to find the valid combinations by looking in the documaentation.
A better aproach must be found to make modifications of a requisition using different data-sources possible.