Re: Vote: move to git.
When attached to a jira issue, then after approval (or no objection) merging the patch into the master branch by a committer so difficult? I am sorry, i do not see a problem here Regards, Hans On 06/05/15 13:53, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: On May 6, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: the workflow can be simple as is described in: http://www.apache.org/dev/git.html we could use this as the MVP (minimum viable product) so mimic basically how people use SVN and then slowly take advantage of the possibilities of GIT. Regards, Hans Hans, I think you didn't spend enough time studying this material. The document you are referencing is what we already have: the workflow and infrastructure described are already in place: 1) a writable svn repo 2) a read only mirror in git: git://git.apache.org/ofbiz.git 3) Jira to submit patches Jacopo On 06/05/15 13:35, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: My vote is clearly stated: propose a Git workflow that is inline with the ASF policies and that is good for the OFBiz project and I will vote positively. Jacopo On May 6, 2015, at 8:29 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: Then you better change your vote? At it is now, we cannot even create an implementation proposal. Hans On 06/05/15 13:22, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: On May 6, 2015, at 3:34 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: It is no use, setting up an implementation plan when there is still a possibility people will reject it. Ok, if this was your goal then it seems you got your answer: most people are inclined to Git (or will not object to it) but don't feel like it is actionable enough for a vote now: defining an implementation plan, so that people can understand how the actual every day work of the OFBiz community (committers, contributors and users) with Git will be, would definitely help. Jacopo
Re: Vote: move to git.
On May 6, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: > the workflow can be simple as is described in: > http://www.apache.org/dev/git.html > > we could use this as the MVP (minimum viable product) so mimic basically how > people use SVN and then slowly take advantage of the possibilities of GIT. > > Regards, > Hans Hans, I think you didn't spend enough time studying this material. The document you are referencing is what we already have: the workflow and infrastructure described are already in place: 1) a writable svn repo 2) a read only mirror in git: git://git.apache.org/ofbiz.git 3) Jira to submit patches Jacopo > > On 06/05/15 13:35, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >> My vote is clearly stated: propose a Git workflow that is inline with the >> ASF policies and that is good for the OFBiz project and I will vote >> positively. >> >> Jacopo >> >> On May 6, 2015, at 8:29 AM, Hans Bakker >> wrote: >> >>> Then you better change your vote? At it is now, we cannot even create an >>> implementation proposal. >>> Hans >>> >>> On 06/05/15 13:22, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: On May 6, 2015, at 3:34 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: > It is no use, setting up an implementation plan when there is still a > possibility people will reject it. Ok, if this was your goal then it seems you got your answer: most people are inclined to Git (or will not object to it) but don't feel like it is actionable enough for a vote now: defining an implementation plan, so that people can understand how the actual every day work of the OFBiz community (committers, contributors and users) with Git will be, would definitely help. Jacopo >
Re: Vote: move to git.
the workflow can be simple as is described in: http://www.apache.org/dev/git.html we could use this as the MVP (minimum viable product) so mimic basically how people use SVN and then slowly take advantage of the possibilities of GIT. Regards, Hans On 06/05/15 13:35, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: My vote is clearly stated: propose a Git workflow that is inline with the ASF policies and that is good for the OFBiz project and I will vote positively. Jacopo On May 6, 2015, at 8:29 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: Then you better change your vote? At it is now, we cannot even create an implementation proposal. Hans On 06/05/15 13:22, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: On May 6, 2015, at 3:34 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: It is no use, setting up an implementation plan when there is still a possibility people will reject it. Ok, if this was your goal then it seems you got your answer: most people are inclined to Git (or will not object to it) but don't feel like it is actionable enough for a vote now: defining an implementation plan, so that people can understand how the actual every day work of the OFBiz community (committers, contributors and users) with Git will be, would definitely help. Jacopo
Re: Vote: move to git.
Hi Jacopo, I am a bit of a noob on ASF policies. Is it possible to guide us on resources to read to be able to draft any kind of proposal? Can you also define what is an implementation plan? Is it like a document, a migration process, a commit workflow, infrastructure or what exactly? Taher Alkhateeb On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Jacopo Cappellato < jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote: > My vote is clearly stated: propose a Git workflow that is inline with the > ASF policies and that is good for the OFBiz project and I will vote > positively. > > Jacopo > > On May 6, 2015, at 8:29 AM, Hans Bakker > wrote: > > > Then you better change your vote? At it is now, we cannot even create an > implementation proposal. > > Hans > > > > On 06/05/15 13:22, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > >> On May 6, 2015, at 3:34 AM, Hans Bakker > wrote: > >> > >>> It is no use, setting up an implementation plan when there is still a > possibility people will reject it. > >> Ok, if this was your goal then it seems you got your answer: most > people are inclined to Git (or will not object to it) but don't feel like > it is actionable enough for a vote now: defining an implementation plan, so > that people can understand how the actual every day work of the OFBiz > community (committers, contributors and users) with Git will be, would > definitely help. > >> > >> Jacopo > > > >
Re: Vote: move to git.
My vote is clearly stated: propose a Git workflow that is inline with the ASF policies and that is good for the OFBiz project and I will vote positively. Jacopo On May 6, 2015, at 8:29 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: > Then you better change your vote? At it is now, we cannot even create an > implementation proposal. > Hans > > On 06/05/15 13:22, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >> On May 6, 2015, at 3:34 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: >> >>> It is no use, setting up an implementation plan when there is still a >>> possibility people will reject it. >> Ok, if this was your goal then it seems you got your answer: most people are >> inclined to Git (or will not object to it) but don't feel like it is >> actionable enough for a vote now: defining an implementation plan, so that >> people can understand how the actual every day work of the OFBiz community >> (committers, contributors and users) with Git will be, would definitely help. >> >> Jacopo >
Re: Vote: move to git.
Then you better change your vote? At it is now, we cannot even create an implementation proposal. Hans On 06/05/15 13:22, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: On May 6, 2015, at 3:34 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: It is no use, setting up an implementation plan when there is still a possibility people will reject it. Ok, if this was your goal then it seems you got your answer: most people are inclined to Git (or will not object to it) but don't feel like it is actionable enough for a vote now: defining an implementation plan, so that people can understand how the actual every day work of the OFBiz community (committers, contributors and users) with Git will be, would definitely help. Jacopo
Re: Vote: move to git.
On May 6, 2015, at 3:34 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: > It is no use, setting up an implementation plan when there is still a > possibility people will reject it. Ok, if this was your goal then it seems you got your answer: most people are inclined to Git (or will not object to it) but don't feel like it is actionable enough for a vote now: defining an implementation plan, so that people can understand how the actual every day work of the OFBiz community (committers, contributors and users) with Git will be, would definitely help. Jacopo
Re: Vote: move to git.
Jacopo, This vote was about IF we choose to go to Git, if the answer is yes, sure then we need an implementation plan. It is no use, setting up an implementation plan when there is still a possibility people will reject it. Regards, Hans PS. We really have to change the way we work here, I admire Adam, spending so much time on maven when people can still reject it. On 05/05/15 20:06, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: -1 not because I don't like Git or because I don't think it wouldn't be a good fit for OFBiz; the reason for my negative vote is that in the vote there is no mention to the workflow the project will adopt; at the ASF there are some limitations due to Infrastructure and/or license/legal reasons and not all the way Git could be used are allowed (for example I don't think we will be allowed to accept Pull Requests from GitHub). There are several ASF projects that have switched to Git (https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf ) but the workflows they have adopted are different from the ones implied by some of the comments in this mailing list; see for example: http://karaf.apache.org/index/community/contributing.html (this is very similar to our current svn-based workflow) http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/GitAndHadoop (patch based contributions) I have mentioned a few times that until someone will take time to review what others do and what can be done @ASF with Git and come up with a proposal for OFBiz, my vote will be negative because it doesn't make any sense to vote for a tool or the other. Jacopo On May 5, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: As the discussions seem to end, can i propose a vote? The question : should we convert the master SVN repository of Apache OFBIz to a GIT version? The possible answers are according the apache voting guidelines at: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html * +1: 'Yes lets do it' * +0: 'I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with this.' * -0.5: 'I don't like this idea, but I can't find any rational justification for my feelings.' * ++1: 'Wow! I like this! Let's /do/ it!' * -0.9: 'I /really/ don't like this, but I'm not going to stand in the way if everyone else wants to go ahead with it.' * +0.9: 'This is a cool idea and i like it, but I don't have time/the skills necessary to help out.' * -1 'I do not want this.' Votes will be possible for one week from today. Regards, Hans On 20/04/15 11:38, Hans Bakker wrote: As discussed at apachecon in Austin, i propose to switch from svn to git for the ofbiz repository. The main reason being that all major contributors are using git and contributions are cumbersome, further, git allows for better branching and merging. Regards, Hans
[jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-6207) Anyone can view any Request or Quote
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6207?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14529151#comment-14529151 ] Jacques Le Roux commented on OFBIZ-6207: Yes, that would be good indeed :) > Anyone can view any Request or Quote > > > Key: OFBIZ-6207 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6207 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Bug > Components: specialpurpose/ecommerce >Affects Versions: Trunk, 13.07.01 >Reporter: Forrest Rae >Assignee: Deepak Dixit >Priority: Critical > Labels: security > Fix For: 14.12.01, 13.07.02, Upcoming Branch > > Attachments: OFBIZ-6207-fourth-attempt.patch > > > This is a security bug in the ecommerce application. Anyone can view any > quote or request in the system regardless of the associated partyId. They > can do this via URL parameter manipulation. > Reproduction: > 1) Login to the ecommerce application as DemoCustomer. > 2) Navigate to > http://demo-stable-ofbiz.apache.org/ecommerce/control/ViewRequest?custRequestId=9000 > to view your own request. > 3) Navigate to > http://demo-stable-ofbiz.apache.org/ecommerce/control/ViewRequest?custRequestId=9001 > to view DemoCustAgent's request. > 4) Navigate to > http://demo-stable-ofbiz.apache.org/ecommerce/control/ViewRequest?custRequestId=9002 > to view DemoCustomer2's request. > Same goes for Quotes, although there are no quotes in the Demo data. The > attach patch fixes this issue. > Would like this issue back ported to release 13.07 please. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-6271) build management with maven
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6271?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14529135#comment-14529135 ] Ron Wheeler commented on OFBIZ-6271: I did not say that it was a good idea for us:-) It is a solution for the truly paranoid who does not want to include any jars from a public repo and wants to build everything including transitive dependencies from sources downloaded from the author. It is a middle ground for companies that currently forbid the use of any open source software for security reasons. It would make the inclusion of any open source project very explicit which might make an auditor or risk manager sufficiently comfortable to allow some open source libraries into a closed shop. It is a lot more work but not unmanageable. Certainly more efficient than banning open source or not using Maven. Once you have the initial repo populated and want to upgrade a version, you would have to look at the transitive dependencies and rebuild all of those that also changed. If you removed the old versions at the same time, you would quickly find dependencies on the older versions so you could fix those as well. I would suspect that the repo would be a couple of gigs but not tens of gigs. Our repo is under 4 gigs with all our stuff as well as the dependencies downloaded over the past 8 years. (13 versions of Ant, 10 version of commons-logging, 9 versions of poi, 12 versions of jackrabbit). We probably use over 100 external jars in our largest app which is made up of over 70 Maven projects. So I would not be worried about the size of a private OFBiz repo. This approach would not interfere with Maven at all. Maven has no idea how my Nexus repo finds all the artifacts in my builds. It refers to a single virtual repo in settings.xml and the repo administrator (me in our case) defines the contents of that virtual repo. The fact that our Nexus includes both proxied artifacts from a few other repos besides Maven Central and our own hosted repo is hidden from Maven. It just asks our repo for stuff and the artifacts get downloaded to the developer's cache transparently to the developer. > build management with maven > --- > > Key: OFBIZ-6271 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6271 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: ALL COMPONENTS >Reporter: Adam Heath >Priority: Minor > Attachments: console.log > > > This is a new build system; the primary goal will be to not require any > changes to existing ofbiz layouts(for backwards compatibility, at least > initially). > These pom.xml files are completely new; the existing build.xml infrastructure > will continue to exist. The existing build.xml will never call into > maven(which is what processes the pom.xml), and maven will never call into > build.xml either. > I have already committed a working pom.xml for the top level, and > framework/start. Shortly, I will be adding framework/base and > framework/entity, but into this branch. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Comment Edited] (OFBIZ-6271) build management with maven
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6271?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14529109#comment-14529109 ] Jacques Le Roux edited comment on OFBIZ-6271 at 5/5/15 7:25 PM: With debootstrap this shows how things can get complicated when you try to let tools do the work for you. Sometimes it even becomes more complicated than doing it by hand, we cross similar situations everyday while (seriouyly) programming, don't we? I'm not against new things, even trendy ones, it's just that the more we think about how to use them, the more we know what to do and the way we should eventually choose. Sometimes we don't think enough, and later it's too late. We can share and discuss until things are cristal clear to everyone I think... So thanks to share guys! was (Author: jacques.le.roux): With debootstrap this shows how things can get complicated when you try to let tools do the work for you. Sometimes it even becomes more complicated than doing it by hand, we cross similar situations everyday while (seriouyly) programming, don't we? I'm not against new things, even trendy ones, it's just that the more we think about how to use them, the more we know what we to do and the way we should eventually choose. Sometimes we don't think enough, and later it's too late. We can share and discuss until things are cristal clear to everyone I think... So thanks to share guys! > build management with maven > --- > > Key: OFBIZ-6271 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6271 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: ALL COMPONENTS >Reporter: Adam Heath >Priority: Minor > Attachments: console.log > > > This is a new build system; the primary goal will be to not require any > changes to existing ofbiz layouts(for backwards compatibility, at least > initially). > These pom.xml files are completely new; the existing build.xml infrastructure > will continue to exist. The existing build.xml will never call into > maven(which is what processes the pom.xml), and maven will never call into > build.xml either. > I have already committed a working pom.xml for the top level, and > framework/start. Shortly, I will be adding framework/base and > framework/entity, but into this branch. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-6271) build management with maven
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6271?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14529109#comment-14529109 ] Jacques Le Roux commented on OFBIZ-6271: With debootstrap this shows how things can get complicated when you try to let tools do the work for you. Sometimes it even becomes more complicated than doing it by hand, we cross similar situations everyday while (seriouyly) programming, don't we? I'm not against new things, even trendy ones, it's just that the more we think about how to use them, the more we know what we to do and the way we should eventually choose. Sometimes we don't think enough, and later it's too late. We can share and discuss until things are cristal clear to everyone I think... So thanks to share guys! > build management with maven > --- > > Key: OFBIZ-6271 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6271 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: ALL COMPONENTS >Reporter: Adam Heath >Priority: Minor > Attachments: console.log > > > This is a new build system; the primary goal will be to not require any > changes to existing ofbiz layouts(for backwards compatibility, at least > initially). > These pom.xml files are completely new; the existing build.xml infrastructure > will continue to exist. The existing build.xml will never call into > maven(which is what processes the pom.xml), and maven will never call into > build.xml either. > I have already committed a working pom.xml for the top level, and > framework/start. Shortly, I will be adding framework/base and > framework/entity, but into this branch. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-6271) build management with maven
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6271?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14529097#comment-14529097 ] Jacques Le Roux commented on OFBIZ-6271: Yes, I quickly watched your prez, that's also why I posted here, I thought I'd have feedbacks, notably yours. OK so you needed and used debootstrap, interesting... Actually the rant was not much about Docker itself, but as you said how it's used and how automated tools like Maven, Ivy and Gradle can hide some parts, sometimes letting people forget about security. I did not take the rant for myself ;) > build management with maven > --- > > Key: OFBIZ-6271 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6271 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: ALL COMPONENTS >Reporter: Adam Heath >Priority: Minor > Attachments: console.log > > > This is a new build system; the primary goal will be to not require any > changes to existing ofbiz layouts(for backwards compatibility, at least > initially). > These pom.xml files are completely new; the existing build.xml infrastructure > will continue to exist. The existing build.xml will never call into > maven(which is what processes the pom.xml), and maven will never call into > build.xml either. > I have already committed a working pom.xml for the top level, and > framework/start. Shortly, I will be adding framework/base and > framework/entity, but into this branch. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-6207) Anyone can view any Request or Quote
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6207?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14528921#comment-14528921 ] Forrest Rae commented on OFBIZ-6207: I've read that and don't see anything about splitting patches into multiple files, unless I'm blind (there is always that possibility :P ). If you'd like me to do that, I will. I'll also update the wiki with instructions once I've been through the process. > Anyone can view any Request or Quote > > > Key: OFBIZ-6207 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6207 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Bug > Components: specialpurpose/ecommerce >Affects Versions: Trunk, 13.07.01 >Reporter: Forrest Rae >Assignee: Deepak Dixit >Priority: Critical > Labels: security > Fix For: 14.12.01, 13.07.02, Upcoming Branch > > Attachments: OFBIZ-6207-fourth-attempt.patch > > > This is a security bug in the ecommerce application. Anyone can view any > quote or request in the system regardless of the associated partyId. They > can do this via URL parameter manipulation. > Reproduction: > 1) Login to the ecommerce application as DemoCustomer. > 2) Navigate to > http://demo-stable-ofbiz.apache.org/ecommerce/control/ViewRequest?custRequestId=9000 > to view your own request. > 3) Navigate to > http://demo-stable-ofbiz.apache.org/ecommerce/control/ViewRequest?custRequestId=9001 > to view DemoCustAgent's request. > 4) Navigate to > http://demo-stable-ofbiz.apache.org/ecommerce/control/ViewRequest?custRequestId=9002 > to view DemoCustomer2's request. > Same goes for Quotes, although there are no quotes in the Demo data. The > attach patch fixes this issue. > Would like this issue back ported to release 13.07 please. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
survey: what version(s) of gradle are available on your systems?
I'm considering investigating gradle, but have discovered that it's not even available for debian wheezy(nor in backports). So, I currently interested in what other people have available for installation. In jessie, the version of gradle is 1.5.
[jira] [Updated] (OFBIZ-6330) The invoiceTaxTotal value is missing from createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice service
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Kongrath Suankaewmanee updated OFBIZ-6330:
--
Priority: Major (was: Minor)
> The invoiceTaxTotal value is missing from createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice
> service
>
>
> Key: OFBIZ-6330
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6330
> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: accounting
>Affects Versions: Trunk
>Reporter: Kongrath Suankaewmanee
> Attachments: GeneralLedgerServices.patch
>
>
> Hi All,
> I'm not sure why the createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice service did not call
> the method to get invoiceTaxTotal.
> class-name="org.ofbiz.accounting.invoice.InvoiceWorker"
> ret-field="invoiceTaxTotal">
>
>
> And the invoiceTaxTotal value needs to add to totalAmountFromInvoice via code
> below:
> decimal-scale="${ledgerDecimals}" rounding-mode="${roundingMode}">
>
>
>
>
>
> That it should work like the createAcctgTransForSalesInvoice service of the
> sales invoice.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-6331) PMC RDF needs to use asfext:pmc, not asfext:PMC
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6331?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14528708#comment-14528708 ] Sebb commented on OFBIZ-6331: - Thanks for the very prompt attention to this. > PMC RDF needs to use asfext:pmc, not asfext:PMC > --- > > Key: OFBIZ-6331 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6331 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Bug > Environment: http://ofbiz.apache.org/pmc/ofbiz.rdf >Reporter: Sebb >Assignee: Jacopo Cappellato > > The asfext DOAP extension PMC data documentation [1] was clarified recently, > as there was some historic confusion over whether the property name should be > in upper or lower case. > It has now been confirmed that lower case should be used [2]. > There are a few PMC data files which currently use upper case; your PMC is > one such. > Please could the project change "asfext:PMC" to "asfext:pmc" in the file? > There will be two such references. > Thanks. > [1] http://projects.apache.org/docs/pmc.html > [2] http://projects.apache.org/ns/asfext -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-6331) PMC RDF needs to use asfext:pmc, not asfext:PMC
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6331?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14528690#comment-14528690 ] Jacopo Cappellato commented on OFBIZ-6331: -- Done in rev. 1677843 Thanks for the report [~s...@apache.org]! > PMC RDF needs to use asfext:pmc, not asfext:PMC > --- > > Key: OFBIZ-6331 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6331 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Bug > Environment: http://ofbiz.apache.org/pmc/ofbiz.rdf >Reporter: Sebb >Assignee: Jacopo Cappellato > > The asfext DOAP extension PMC data documentation [1] was clarified recently, > as there was some historic confusion over whether the property name should be > in upper or lower case. > It has now been confirmed that lower case should be used [2]. > There are a few PMC data files which currently use upper case; your PMC is > one such. > Please could the project change "asfext:PMC" to "asfext:pmc" in the file? > There will be two such references. > Thanks. > [1] http://projects.apache.org/docs/pmc.html > [2] http://projects.apache.org/ns/asfext -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Closed] (OFBIZ-6331) PMC RDF needs to use asfext:pmc, not asfext:PMC
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6331?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Jacopo Cappellato closed OFBIZ-6331. Resolution: Fixed > PMC RDF needs to use asfext:pmc, not asfext:PMC > --- > > Key: OFBIZ-6331 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6331 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Bug > Environment: http://ofbiz.apache.org/pmc/ofbiz.rdf >Reporter: Sebb >Assignee: Jacopo Cappellato > > The asfext DOAP extension PMC data documentation [1] was clarified recently, > as there was some historic confusion over whether the property name should be > in upper or lower case. > It has now been confirmed that lower case should be used [2]. > There are a few PMC data files which currently use upper case; your PMC is > one such. > Please could the project change "asfext:PMC" to "asfext:pmc" in the file? > There will be two such references. > Thanks. > [1] http://projects.apache.org/docs/pmc.html > [2] http://projects.apache.org/ns/asfext -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Assigned] (OFBIZ-6331) PMC RDF needs to use asfext:pmc, not asfext:PMC
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6331?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Jacopo Cappellato reassigned OFBIZ-6331: Assignee: Jacopo Cappellato > PMC RDF needs to use asfext:pmc, not asfext:PMC > --- > > Key: OFBIZ-6331 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6331 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Bug > Environment: http://ofbiz.apache.org/pmc/ofbiz.rdf >Reporter: Sebb >Assignee: Jacopo Cappellato > > The asfext DOAP extension PMC data documentation [1] was clarified recently, > as there was some historic confusion over whether the property name should be > in upper or lower case. > It has now been confirmed that lower case should be used [2]. > There are a few PMC data files which currently use upper case; your PMC is > one such. > Please could the project change "asfext:PMC" to "asfext:pmc" in the file? > There will be two such references. > Thanks. > [1] http://projects.apache.org/docs/pmc.html > [2] http://projects.apache.org/ns/asfext -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Created] (OFBIZ-6331) PMC RDF needs to use asfext:pmc, not asfext:PMC
Sebb created OFBIZ-6331: --- Summary: PMC RDF needs to use asfext:pmc, not asfext:PMC Key: OFBIZ-6331 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6331 Project: OFBiz Issue Type: Bug Environment: http://ofbiz.apache.org/pmc/ofbiz.rdf Reporter: Sebb The asfext DOAP extension PMC data documentation [1] was clarified recently, as there was some historic confusion over whether the property name should be in upper or lower case. It has now been confirmed that lower case should be used [2]. There are a few PMC data files which currently use upper case; your PMC is one such. Please could the project change "asfext:PMC" to "asfext:pmc" in the file? There will be two such references. Thanks. [1] http://projects.apache.org/docs/pmc.html [2] http://projects.apache.org/ns/asfext -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-6271) build management with maven
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6271?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14528552#comment-14528552 ] Adam Heath commented on OFBIZ-6271: --- Hahaha. That guy is an idiot. Seriously. Don't blame the tool for bad developers. I gave a talk at ApacheCon just recently, showing how to use ofbiz and docker together. Do you think I just randomly download stuff from the internet, every single time? I don't, because I understand the point of trusted build, and security. Docker itself is really really really bad for security on downloaded image layers. It has a message that says "verified" when it has fetched remote data, but the data was retrieved over http, and the hashsum in the metadata is *not* checked. All that verified message means is that the metadata was syntactically correct! I rebuild my base image layers using debootstrap(I don't trust the debian or ubuntu image flavors). This is all based on apt-get stuff. The only thing I download is wp-cli, but that's not being fully utilized, and I don't actually download it automatically(it's a manual step, so could be verified by the developer). So, I've taken this tool(docker), and used the parts that are good, and not the parts that are bad. ps: This is not a rant at you, Jacques. pps: I'm close to having my docker+ofbiz scripts ready. I have a repo already with most of my stuff on github, it just needs a bit of documentation. > build management with maven > --- > > Key: OFBIZ-6271 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6271 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: ALL COMPONENTS >Reporter: Adam Heath >Priority: Minor > Attachments: console.log > > > This is a new build system; the primary goal will be to not require any > changes to existing ofbiz layouts(for backwards compatibility, at least > initially). > These pom.xml files are completely new; the existing build.xml infrastructure > will continue to exist. The existing build.xml will never call into > maven(which is what processes the pom.xml), and maven will never call into > build.xml either. > I have already committed a working pom.xml for the top level, and > framework/start. Shortly, I will be adding framework/base and > framework/entity, but into this branch. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-6271) build management with maven
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6271?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14528535#comment-14528535 ] Adam Heath commented on OFBIZ-6271: --- Um, do you fully understand maven? This is not the right approach. Maven has a distribute mirror network; your suggestion of an ofbiz-hosted private repo would preclude that. Ofbiz is no different than any other big project, why do you think INFRA would allow us to host this repo? When defining a dependency in a pom, it's possible to tell maven to *not* pull in *any* transitive deps, or to override the version of a dep, or to exclude just one transitive dep. Also, a private external repo is not needed. I already have the currently-checked-in jar files being used, without defining a top-level in a pom. Plus, having a top-level repository defined is very much bad form. There are so many things wrong with your paragraph, do you actually understand what maven can actually do? > build management with maven > --- > > Key: OFBIZ-6271 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6271 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: ALL COMPONENTS >Reporter: Adam Heath >Priority: Minor > Attachments: console.log > > > This is a new build system; the primary goal will be to not require any > changes to existing ofbiz layouts(for backwards compatibility, at least > initially). > These pom.xml files are completely new; the existing build.xml infrastructure > will continue to exist. The existing build.xml will never call into > maven(which is what processes the pom.xml), and maven will never call into > build.xml either. > I have already committed a working pom.xml for the top level, and > framework/start. Shortly, I will be adding framework/base and > framework/entity, but into this branch. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
Re: Vote: move to git.
That's my point as well. These most recent votes have not had concrete actions attached to them. Without a concrete plan, any kind of +# vote is not definitive; a +1 could mean anything in these cases. I chose +0 instead of -0 or -1, as I do believe git is the right approach, but we need more time to figure out what will change. * How does the submit-as-patch workflow change with Jira(still allow for patch, but also allow for fork(clone)/push/merge-request)? * How to deal with empty directories(svn allows them, git does not)? * Do we try to support signed commits? * Should Acked-By, Signed-off-By, etc be adopted as pseudo tags(see the linux-kernel's use of git)? * Use pseudo tags for Jira issues? * What about CLA for all those fork/clone above? * Who are the Lieutenants, and who is the Dictator(the linux kernel way, not a suggestion for us)? * What about line-ending changes? Git has a feature(.gitattributes, .git/info/attributes) that allow for many different flags to be set; what would those values be? These are just off the top of my head. On 05/05/2015 08:06 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: -1 not because I don't like Git or because I don't think it wouldn't be a good fit for OFBiz; the reason for my negative vote is that in the vote there is no mention to the workflow the project will adopt; at the ASF there are some limitations due to Infrastructure and/or license/legal reasons and not all the way Git could be used are allowed (for example I don't think we will be allowed to accept Pull Requests from GitHub). There are several ASF projects that have switched to Git (https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf ) but the workflows they have adopted are different from the ones implied by some of the comments in this mailing list; see for example: http://karaf.apache.org/index/community/contributing.html (this is very similar to our current svn-based workflow) http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/GitAndHadoop (patch based contributions) I have mentioned a few times that until someone will take time to review what others do and what can be done @ASF with Git and come up with a proposal for OFBiz, my vote will be negative because it doesn't make any sense to vote for a tool or the other. Jacopo On May 5, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: As the discussions seem to end, can i propose a vote? The question : should we convert the master SVN repository of Apache OFBIz to a GIT version? The possible answers are according the apache voting guidelines at: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html * +1: 'Yes lets do it' * +0: 'I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with this.' * -0.5: 'I don't like this idea, but I can't find any rational justification for my feelings.' * ++1: 'Wow! I like this! Let's /do/ it!' * -0.9: 'I /really/ don't like this, but I'm not going to stand in the way if everyone else wants to go ahead with it.' * +0.9: 'This is a cool idea and i like it, but I don't have time/the skills necessary to help out.' * -1 'I do not want this.' Votes will be possible for one week from today. Regards, Hans On 20/04/15 11:38, Hans Bakker wrote: As discussed at apachecon in Austin, i propose to switch from svn to git for the ofbiz repository. The main reason being that all major contributors are using git and contributions are cumbersome, further, git allows for better branching and merging. Regards, Hans
[jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-6207) Anyone can view any Request or Quote
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6207?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14528419#comment-14528419 ] Jacques Le Roux commented on OFBIZ-6207: See "How to Send in Your Contributions (or how to create and apply patches)" section at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Contributors+Best+Practices > Anyone can view any Request or Quote > > > Key: OFBIZ-6207 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6207 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Bug > Components: specialpurpose/ecommerce >Affects Versions: Trunk, 13.07.01 >Reporter: Forrest Rae >Assignee: Deepak Dixit >Priority: Critical > Labels: security > Fix For: 14.12.01, 13.07.02, Upcoming Branch > > Attachments: OFBIZ-6207-fourth-attempt.patch > > > This is a security bug in the ecommerce application. Anyone can view any > quote or request in the system regardless of the associated partyId. They > can do this via URL parameter manipulation. > Reproduction: > 1) Login to the ecommerce application as DemoCustomer. > 2) Navigate to > http://demo-stable-ofbiz.apache.org/ecommerce/control/ViewRequest?custRequestId=9000 > to view your own request. > 3) Navigate to > http://demo-stable-ofbiz.apache.org/ecommerce/control/ViewRequest?custRequestId=9001 > to view DemoCustAgent's request. > 4) Navigate to > http://demo-stable-ofbiz.apache.org/ecommerce/control/ViewRequest?custRequestId=9002 > to view DemoCustomer2's request. > Same goes for Quotes, although there are no quotes in the Demo data. The > attach patch fixes this issue. > Would like this issue back ported to release 13.07 please. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-6271) build management with maven
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6271?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14528418#comment-14528418 ] Jacques Le Roux commented on OFBIZ-6271: That would be better indeed Ron! > build management with maven > --- > > Key: OFBIZ-6271 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6271 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: ALL COMPONENTS >Reporter: Adam Heath >Priority: Minor > Attachments: console.log > > > This is a new build system; the primary goal will be to not require any > changes to existing ofbiz layouts(for backwards compatibility, at least > initially). > These pom.xml files are completely new; the existing build.xml infrastructure > will continue to exist. The existing build.xml will never call into > maven(which is what processes the pom.xml), and maven will never call into > build.xml either. > I have already committed a working pom.xml for the top level, and > framework/start. Shortly, I will be adding framework/base and > framework/entity, but into this branch. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
Re: Vote: move to git.
-1 not because I don't like Git or because I don't think it wouldn't be a good fit for OFBiz; the reason for my negative vote is that in the vote there is no mention to the workflow the project will adopt; at the ASF there are some limitations due to Infrastructure and/or license/legal reasons and not all the way Git could be used are allowed (for example I don't think we will be allowed to accept Pull Requests from GitHub). There are several ASF projects that have switched to Git (https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf ) but the workflows they have adopted are different from the ones implied by some of the comments in this mailing list; see for example: http://karaf.apache.org/index/community/contributing.html (this is very similar to our current svn-based workflow) http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/GitAndHadoop (patch based contributions) I have mentioned a few times that until someone will take time to review what others do and what can be done @ASF with Git and come up with a proposal for OFBiz, my vote will be negative because it doesn't make any sense to vote for a tool or the other. Jacopo On May 5, 2015, at 5:01 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: > As the discussions seem to end, can i propose a vote? > > The question : should we convert the master SVN repository of Apache OFBIz to > a GIT version? > The possible answers are according the apache voting guidelines at: > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > * > > +1: 'Yes lets do it' > > * +0: 'I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with this.' > * > > -0.5: 'I don't like this idea, but I can't find any rational > justification for my feelings.' > > * > > ++1: 'Wow! I like this! Let's /do/ it!' > > * > > -0.9: 'I /really/ don't like this, but I'm not going to stand in the > way if everyone else wants to go ahead with it.' > > * > > +0.9: 'This is a cool idea and i like it, but I don't have time/the > skills necessary to help out.' > > * -1 'I do not want this.' > > > Votes will be possible for one week from today. > > Regards, > Hans > > On 20/04/15 11:38, Hans Bakker wrote: >> As discussed at apachecon in Austin, i propose to switch from svn to git for >> the ofbiz repository. The main reason being that all major contributors are >> using git and contributions are cumbersome, further, git allows for better >> branching and merging. >> >> Regards, >> Hans >
[jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-6207) Anyone can view any Request or Quote
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6207?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14528393#comment-14528393 ] Forrest Rae commented on OFBIZ-6207: I looked around on the wiki for guidelines on creating bugs/patches but didn't see anything. Is there guidelines on patch creation that I'm just not seeing? > Anyone can view any Request or Quote > > > Key: OFBIZ-6207 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6207 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Bug > Components: specialpurpose/ecommerce >Affects Versions: Trunk, 13.07.01 >Reporter: Forrest Rae >Assignee: Deepak Dixit >Priority: Critical > Labels: security > Fix For: 14.12.01, 13.07.02, Upcoming Branch > > Attachments: OFBIZ-6207-fourth-attempt.patch > > > This is a security bug in the ecommerce application. Anyone can view any > quote or request in the system regardless of the associated partyId. They > can do this via URL parameter manipulation. > Reproduction: > 1) Login to the ecommerce application as DemoCustomer. > 2) Navigate to > http://demo-stable-ofbiz.apache.org/ecommerce/control/ViewRequest?custRequestId=9000 > to view your own request. > 3) Navigate to > http://demo-stable-ofbiz.apache.org/ecommerce/control/ViewRequest?custRequestId=9001 > to view DemoCustAgent's request. > 4) Navigate to > http://demo-stable-ofbiz.apache.org/ecommerce/control/ViewRequest?custRequestId=9002 > to view DemoCustomer2's request. > Same goes for Quotes, although there are no quotes in the Demo data. The > attach patch fixes this issue. > Would like this issue back ported to release 13.07 please. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-6271) build management with maven
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6271?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14528361#comment-14528361 ] Ron Wheeler commented on OFBIZ-6271: How many third party dependencies are part of OFBiz? Do we need to build each of these as part of OFBiz? With Maven, we could set up a pprivate repo and build each of the dependencies from source and deploy them to a private OFBiz repo to assure ourselves of a secure set of jars. A bit of work to set up and keep it up to date but would add a layer of control and security to OFBiz. It would also reduce the current "jar hell" where multiple versions of third party libraries are listed as transitive dependencies and left to the classloader to sort out at run-time. > build management with maven > --- > > Key: OFBIZ-6271 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6271 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: ALL COMPONENTS >Reporter: Adam Heath >Priority: Minor > Attachments: console.log > > > This is a new build system; the primary goal will be to not require any > changes to existing ofbiz layouts(for backwards compatibility, at least > initially). > These pom.xml files are completely new; the existing build.xml infrastructure > will continue to exist. The existing build.xml will never call into > maven(which is what processes the pom.xml), and maven will never call into > build.xml either. > I have already committed a working pom.xml for the top level, and > framework/start. Shortly, I will be adding framework/base and > framework/entity, but into this branch. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
Re: Vote: move to git.
+0.9 Julien. Le 05/05/2015 05:01, Hans Bakker a écrit : As the discussions seem to end, can i propose a vote? The question : should we convert the master SVN repository of Apache OFBIz to a GIT version? The possible answers are according the apache voting guidelines at: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html * +1: 'Yes lets do it' * +0: 'I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with this.' * -0.5: 'I don't like this idea, but I can't find any rational justification for my feelings.' * ++1: 'Wow! I like this! Let's /do/ it!' * -0.9: 'I /really/ don't like this, but I'm not going to stand in the way if everyone else wants to go ahead with it.' * +0.9: 'This is a cool idea and i like it, but I don't have time/the skills necessary to help out.' * -1 'I do not want this.' Votes will be possible for one week from today. Regards, Hans On 20/04/15 11:38, Hans Bakker wrote: As discussed at apachecon in Austin, i propose to switch from svn to git for the ofbiz repository. The main reason being that all major contributors are using git and contributions are cumbersome, further, git allows for better branching and merging. Regards, Hans
Re: Vote: move to git.
+0 On 05/05/2015 05:01, Hans Bakker wrote: As the discussions seem to end, can i propose a vote? The question : should we convert the master SVN repository of Apache OFBIz to a GIT version? The possible answers are according the apache voting guidelines at: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html * +1: 'Yes lets do it' * +0: 'I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with this.' * -0.5: 'I don't like this idea, but I can't find any rational justification for my feelings.' * ++1: 'Wow! I like this! Let's /do/ it!' * -0.9: 'I /really/ don't like this, but I'm not going to stand in the way if everyone else wants to go ahead with it.' * +0.9: 'This is a cool idea and i like it, but I don't have time/the skills necessary to help out.' * -1 'I do not want this.' Votes will be possible for one week from today. Regards, Hans On 20/04/15 11:38, Hans Bakker wrote: As discussed at apachecon in Austin, i propose to switch from svn to git for the ofbiz repository. The main reason being that all major contributors are using git and contributions are cumbersome, further, git allows for better branching and merging. Regards, Hans
Re: Vote: move to git.
-0 (maybe it's the same that +0 ;) ), I vote +0 when I will use git, but currently the fthe fear of change :). Le 05/05/2015 05:01, Hans Bakker a écrit : As the discussions seem to end, can i propose a vote? The question : should we convert the master SVN repository of Apache OFBIz to a GIT version? The possible answers are according the apache voting guidelines at: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html * +1: 'Yes lets do it' * +0: 'I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with this.' * -0.5: 'I don't like this idea, but I can't find any rational justification for my feelings.' * ++1: 'Wow! I like this! Let's /do/ it!' * -0.9: 'I /really/ don't like this, but I'm not going to stand in the way if everyone else wants to go ahead with it.' * +0.9: 'This is a cool idea and i like it, but I don't have time/the skills necessary to help out.' * -1 'I do not want this.' Votes will be possible for one week from today. Regards, Hans On 20/04/15 11:38, Hans Bakker wrote: As discussed at apachecon in Austin, i propose to switch from svn to git for the ofbiz repository. The main reason being that all major contributors are using git and contributions are cumbersome, further, git allows for better branching and merging. Regards, Hans
Re: Vote: move to git.
+0 Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 5/4/2015 8:01 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: As the discussions seem to end, can i propose a vote? The question : should we convert the master SVN repository of Apache OFBIz to a GIT version? The possible answers are according the apache voting guidelines at: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html * +1: 'Yes lets do it' * +0: 'I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with this.' * -0.5: 'I don't like this idea, but I can't find any rational justification for my feelings.' * ++1: 'Wow! I like this! Let's /do/ it!' * -0.9: 'I /really/ don't like this, but I'm not going to stand in the way if everyone else wants to go ahead with it.' * +0.9: 'This is a cool idea and i like it, but I don't have time/the skills necessary to help out.' * -1 'I do not want this.' Votes will be possible for one week from today. Regards, Hans On 20/04/15 11:38, Hans Bakker wrote: As discussed at apachecon in Austin, i propose to switch from svn to git for the ofbiz repository. The main reason being that all major contributors are using git and contributions are cumbersome, further, git allows for better branching and merging. Regards, Hans
[jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-6329) Malfunction of configurable FTL-Template caching in DataResourceWorker.renderDataResourceAsText
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6329?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14528284#comment-14528284 ] Martin Becker commented on OFBIZ-6329: -- Sorry for that, Adrian. I'm using git locally and created the patch files with "git format-patch" as Michael stated. Therefore there are some header informations additional to the standard diff in the patch file. There should be no need for a committer to modify a patch file to get it working, so we will create the patch files with "git diff", that should be fine. I will provide corrected patch files here soon and Adrian may check if they are usable for him (and thus for all others). > Malfunction of configurable FTL-Template caching in > DataResourceWorker.renderDataResourceAsText > --- > > Key: OFBIZ-6329 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6329 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Bug > Components: content >Affects Versions: Trunk >Reporter: Martin Becker > Attachments: OFBIZ-6329_FTL-Caching.patch, > OFBIZ-6329_Non-Template-Caching.patch > > > There are several problems with the current caching logic in > DataResourceWorker.renderDataResourceAsText(...). > Enabling the caching of rendered FTL-Templates from DataResources with the > property disable.ftl.template.cache in content.properties enables a > non-functioning block of code that handles the rendering of the cached > template. And if it is deactivated (default), the FTL-Templates are still > cached by the FreeMarkerWorker. > However the correct logic for caching and using the rendered FTL-Template is > already implemented in the FreeMarkerWorker and controlled by an optional > useCache parameter. > In addition there is an API call to DataResourceWorker.writeDataResourceText > for non template content with a static "true" for useCache instead of using > the given cache parameter value of the renderDataResourceAsText method > itself, so even if the caller do not want to use caching at all, the non > template text data is cached an FTL-Templates are cached also. > I will provide a patch for those two issues in the mentioned method. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Closed] (OFBIZ-6207) Anyone can view any Request or Quote
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6207?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Deepak Dixit closed OFBIZ-6207. --- Resolution: Fixed Fix Version/s: Upcoming Branch 13.07.02 14.12.01 > Anyone can view any Request or Quote > > > Key: OFBIZ-6207 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6207 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Bug > Components: specialpurpose/ecommerce >Affects Versions: Trunk, 13.07.01 >Reporter: Forrest Rae >Assignee: Deepak Dixit >Priority: Critical > Labels: security > Fix For: 14.12.01, 13.07.02, Upcoming Branch > > Attachments: OFBIZ-6207-fourth-attempt.patch > > > This is a security bug in the ecommerce application. Anyone can view any > quote or request in the system regardless of the associated partyId. They > can do this via URL parameter manipulation. > Reproduction: > 1) Login to the ecommerce application as DemoCustomer. > 2) Navigate to > http://demo-stable-ofbiz.apache.org/ecommerce/control/ViewRequest?custRequestId=9000 > to view your own request. > 3) Navigate to > http://demo-stable-ofbiz.apache.org/ecommerce/control/ViewRequest?custRequestId=9001 > to view DemoCustAgent's request. > 4) Navigate to > http://demo-stable-ofbiz.apache.org/ecommerce/control/ViewRequest?custRequestId=9002 > to view DemoCustomer2's request. > Same goes for Quotes, although there are no quotes in the Demo data. The > attach patch fixes this issue. > Would like this issue back ported to release 13.07 please. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-6207) Anyone can view any Request or Quote
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6207?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14528238#comment-14528238 ] Deepak Dixit commented on OFBIZ-6207: - Thanks Forrest Rae for the but report and patch. Ps: Please do not mix formatting changes with functional changes, its difficult to review the patch > Anyone can view any Request or Quote > > > Key: OFBIZ-6207 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6207 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Bug > Components: specialpurpose/ecommerce >Affects Versions: Trunk, 13.07.01 >Reporter: Forrest Rae >Assignee: Deepak Dixit >Priority: Critical > Labels: security > Attachments: OFBIZ-6207-fourth-attempt.patch > > > This is a security bug in the ecommerce application. Anyone can view any > quote or request in the system regardless of the associated partyId. They > can do this via URL parameter manipulation. > Reproduction: > 1) Login to the ecommerce application as DemoCustomer. > 2) Navigate to > http://demo-stable-ofbiz.apache.org/ecommerce/control/ViewRequest?custRequestId=9000 > to view your own request. > 3) Navigate to > http://demo-stable-ofbiz.apache.org/ecommerce/control/ViewRequest?custRequestId=9001 > to view DemoCustAgent's request. > 4) Navigate to > http://demo-stable-ofbiz.apache.org/ecommerce/control/ViewRequest?custRequestId=9002 > to view DemoCustomer2's request. > Same goes for Quotes, although there are no quotes in the Demo data. The > attach patch fixes this issue. > Would like this issue back ported to release 13.07 please. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
buildbot exception in ASF Buildbot on ofbiz-trunk
The Buildbot has detected a build exception on builder ofbiz-trunk while building ASF Buildbot. Full details are available at: http://ci.apache.org/builders/ofbiz-trunk/builds/863 Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/ Buildslave for this Build: lares_ubuntu Build Reason: The AnyBranchScheduler scheduler named 'on-ofbiz-commit' triggered this build Build Source Stamp: [branch ofbiz/trunk] 160 Blamelist: deepak BUILD FAILED: exception upload_3 Sincerely, -The Buildbot
[jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-6271) build management with maven
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6271?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14528212#comment-14528212 ] Jacopo Cappellato commented on OFBIZ-6271: -- It would be great to explore Gradle with a small POC. The Groovy project uses Gradle as its build management and they also have a script to download Gradle (they do not even bundle Gradle in the distribution): https://github.com/apache/incubator-groovy/blob/master/README.adoc > build management with maven > --- > > Key: OFBIZ-6271 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6271 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: ALL COMPONENTS >Reporter: Adam Heath >Priority: Minor > Attachments: console.log > > > This is a new build system; the primary goal will be to not require any > changes to existing ofbiz layouts(for backwards compatibility, at least > initially). > These pom.xml files are completely new; the existing build.xml infrastructure > will continue to exist. The existing build.xml will never call into > maven(which is what processes the pom.xml), and maven will never call into > build.xml either. > I have already committed a working pom.xml for the top level, and > framework/start. Shortly, I will be adding framework/base and > framework/entity, but into this branch. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Updated] (OFBIZ-6330) The invoiceTaxTotal value is missing from createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice service
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Kongrath Suankaewmanee updated OFBIZ-6330:
--
Attachment: GeneralLedgerServices.patch
> The invoiceTaxTotal value is missing from createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice
> service
>
>
> Key: OFBIZ-6330
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6330
> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: accounting
>Affects Versions: Trunk
>Reporter: Kongrath Suankaewmanee
>Priority: Minor
> Attachments: GeneralLedgerServices.patch
>
>
> Hi All,
> I'm not sure why the createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice service did not call
> the method to get invoiceTaxTotal.
> class-name="org.ofbiz.accounting.invoice.InvoiceWorker"
> ret-field="invoiceTaxTotal">
>
>
> And the invoiceTaxTotal value needs to add to totalAmountFromInvoice via code
> below:
> decimal-scale="${ledgerDecimals}" rounding-mode="${roundingMode}">
>
>
>
>
>
> That it should work like the createAcctgTransForSalesInvoice service of the
> sales invoice.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Updated] (OFBIZ-6330) The invoiceTaxTotal value is missing from createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice service
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Kongrath Suankaewmanee updated OFBIZ-6330:
--
Affects Version/s: Trunk
> The invoiceTaxTotal value is missing from createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice
> service
>
>
> Key: OFBIZ-6330
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6330
> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: accounting
>Affects Versions: Trunk
>Reporter: Kongrath Suankaewmanee
>Priority: Minor
>
> Hi All,
> I'm not sure why the createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice service did not call
> the method to get invoiceTaxTotal.
> class-name="org.ofbiz.accounting.invoice.InvoiceWorker"
> ret-field="invoiceTaxTotal">
>
>
> And the invoiceTaxTotal value needs to add to totalAmountFromInvoice via code
> below:
> decimal-scale="${ledgerDecimals}" rounding-mode="${roundingMode}">
>
>
>
>
>
> That it should work like the createAcctgTransForSalesInvoice service of the
> sales invoice.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Updated] (OFBIZ-6330) The invoiceTaxTotal value is missing from createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice service
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Kongrath Suankaewmanee updated OFBIZ-6330:
--
Fix Version/s: (was: Trunk)
> The invoiceTaxTotal value is missing from createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice
> service
>
>
> Key: OFBIZ-6330
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6330
> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: accounting
>Affects Versions: Trunk
>Reporter: Kongrath Suankaewmanee
>Priority: Minor
>
> Hi All,
> I'm not sure why the createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice service did not call
> the method to get invoiceTaxTotal.
> class-name="org.ofbiz.accounting.invoice.InvoiceWorker"
> ret-field="invoiceTaxTotal">
>
>
> And the invoiceTaxTotal value needs to add to totalAmountFromInvoice via code
> below:
> decimal-scale="${ledgerDecimals}" rounding-mode="${roundingMode}">
>
>
>
>
>
> That it should work like the createAcctgTransForSalesInvoice service of the
> sales invoice.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Comment Edited] (OFBIZ-6271) build management with maven
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6271?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14528206#comment-14528206 ] Jacques Le Roux edited comment on OFBIZ-6271 at 5/5/15 10:00 AM: - We are not concerned (so far), but I very like this rant http://www.vitavonni.de/blog/201503/2015031201-the-sad-state-of-sysadmin-in-the-age-of-containers.html and could not resist to post it here :p We are all doomed, I tell you! was (Author: jacques.le.roux): We are not concerned (so far), but I very like this rant http://www.vitavonni.de/blog/201503/2015031201-the-sad-state-of-sysadmin-in-the-age-of-containers.html and could not resist to post it here :p > build management with maven > --- > > Key: OFBIZ-6271 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6271 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: ALL COMPONENTS >Reporter: Adam Heath >Priority: Minor > Attachments: console.log > > > This is a new build system; the primary goal will be to not require any > changes to existing ofbiz layouts(for backwards compatibility, at least > initially). > These pom.xml files are completely new; the existing build.xml infrastructure > will continue to exist. The existing build.xml will never call into > maven(which is what processes the pom.xml), and maven will never call into > build.xml either. > I have already committed a working pom.xml for the top level, and > framework/start. Shortly, I will be adding framework/base and > framework/entity, but into this branch. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-6271) build management with maven
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6271?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14528206#comment-14528206 ] Jacques Le Roux commented on OFBIZ-6271: We are not concerned (so far), but I very like this rant http://www.vitavonni.de/blog/201503/2015031201-the-sad-state-of-sysadmin-in-the-age-of-containers.html and could not resist to post it here :p > build management with maven > --- > > Key: OFBIZ-6271 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6271 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: ALL COMPONENTS >Reporter: Adam Heath >Priority: Minor > Attachments: console.log > > > This is a new build system; the primary goal will be to not require any > changes to existing ofbiz layouts(for backwards compatibility, at least > initially). > These pom.xml files are completely new; the existing build.xml infrastructure > will continue to exist. The existing build.xml will never call into > maven(which is what processes the pom.xml), and maven will never call into > build.xml either. > I have already committed a working pom.xml for the top level, and > framework/start. Shortly, I will be adding framework/base and > framework/entity, but into this branch. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Updated] (OFBIZ-6330) The invoiceTaxTotal value is missing from createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice service
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Kongrath Suankaewmanee updated OFBIZ-6330:
--
Component/s: accounting
> The invoiceTaxTotal value is missing from createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice
> service
>
>
> Key: OFBIZ-6330
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6330
> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: accounting
>Reporter: Kongrath Suankaewmanee
>Priority: Minor
> Fix For: Trunk
>
>
> Hi All,
> I'm not sure why the createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice service did not call
> the method to get invoiceTaxTotal.
> class-name="org.ofbiz.accounting.invoice.InvoiceWorker"
> ret-field="invoiceTaxTotal">
>
>
> And the invoiceTaxTotal value needs to add to totalAmountFromInvoice via code
> below:
> decimal-scale="${ledgerDecimals}" rounding-mode="${roundingMode}">
>
>
>
>
>
> That it should work like the createAcctgTransForSalesInvoice service of the
> sales invoice.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Updated] (OFBIZ-6330) The invoiceTaxTotal value is missing from createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice service
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Kongrath Suankaewmanee updated OFBIZ-6330:
--
Fix Version/s: Trunk
> The invoiceTaxTotal value is missing from createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice
> service
>
>
> Key: OFBIZ-6330
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6330
> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: accounting
>Reporter: Kongrath Suankaewmanee
>Priority: Minor
> Fix For: Trunk
>
>
> Hi All,
> I'm not sure why the createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice service did not call
> the method to get invoiceTaxTotal.
> class-name="org.ofbiz.accounting.invoice.InvoiceWorker"
> ret-field="invoiceTaxTotal">
>
>
> And the invoiceTaxTotal value needs to add to totalAmountFromInvoice via code
> below:
> decimal-scale="${ledgerDecimals}" rounding-mode="${roundingMode}">
>
>
>
>
>
> That it should work like the createAcctgTransForSalesInvoice service of the
> sales invoice.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Updated] (OFBIZ-6330) The invoiceTaxTotal value is missing from createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice service
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6330?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Kongrath Suankaewmanee updated OFBIZ-6330:
--
Description:
Hi All,
I'm not sure why the createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice service did not call
the method to get invoiceTaxTotal.
And the invoiceTaxTotal value needs to add to totalAmountFromInvoice via code
below:
That it should work like the createAcctgTransForSalesInvoice service of the
sales invoice.
was:
Hi All,
I'm not sure why the createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice service did not call
the method to get invoiceTaxTotal.
And the invoiceTaxTotal value needs to add to totalAmountFromInvoice via code
below:
That it should work like the createAcctgTransForSalesInvoice service of the
sales invoice.
> The invoiceTaxTotal value is missing from createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice
> service
>
>
> Key: OFBIZ-6330
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6330
> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Bug
>Reporter: Kongrath Suankaewmanee
>Priority: Minor
>
> Hi All,
> I'm not sure why the createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice service did not call
> the method to get invoiceTaxTotal.
> class-name="org.ofbiz.accounting.invoice.InvoiceWorker"
> ret-field="invoiceTaxTotal">
>
>
> And the invoiceTaxTotal value needs to add to totalAmountFromInvoice via code
> below:
> decimal-scale="${ledgerDecimals}" rounding-mode="${roundingMode}">
>
>
>
>
>
> That it should work like the createAcctgTransForSalesInvoice service of the
> sales invoice.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Created] (OFBIZ-6330) The invoiceTaxTotal value is missing from createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice service
Kongrath Suankaewmanee created OFBIZ-6330: - Summary: The invoiceTaxTotal value is missing from createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice service Key: OFBIZ-6330 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6330 Project: OFBiz Issue Type: Bug Reporter: Kongrath Suankaewmanee Priority: Minor Hi All, I'm not sure why the createAcctgTransForPurchaseInvoice service did not call the method to get invoiceTaxTotal. And the invoiceTaxTotal value needs to add to totalAmountFromInvoice via code below: That it should work like the createAcctgTransForSalesInvoice service of the sales invoice. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Updated] (OFBIZ-5855) There is no way to add Party Type (legal, informal etc.) in party manager application
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5855?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Jacopo Cappellato updated OFBIZ-5855: - Affects Version/s: (was: Release Branch 13.07) > There is no way to add Party Type (legal, informal etc.) in party manager > application > - > > Key: OFBIZ-5855 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5855 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: New Feature > Components: party >Affects Versions: Trunk >Reporter: Ejaz Ahmed >Priority: Minor > > When find party screen is selected, it shows a drop down list for Type which > can be legal organization, informal group, party group, person, team etc. The > person and party group types can be selected when we create a party (create > new party group, create new person options). However, there is no way to > assign the types such as legal organization, informal groups etc which appear > in this list to the parties created. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
[jira] [Updated] (OFBIZ-4206) Project Manager throws error if project user is not assigned to every project
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4206?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Jacopo Cappellato updated OFBIZ-4206: - Affects Version/s: (was: Release Branch 13.07) > Project Manager throws error if project user is not assigned to every project > - > > Key: OFBIZ-4206 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-4206 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Bug > Components: specialpurpose/projectmgr >Affects Versions: Release 09.04, Release Branch 12.04, Trunk > Environment: RHEL 5.5 32 bit JDK >Reporter: Tolulope Aganga-Williams >Priority: Minor > Labels: patch > Attachments: ofbiz-trunk-projectmgr-commonscreens-20110722.patch > > Original Estimate: 24h > Remaining Estimate: 24h > > The project manager returns an error on the main page unless every user is > added to every single project. It should return a list of just the projects > the user is assigned to. > :ERROR MESSAGE: > org.ofbiz.widget.screen.ScreenRenderException: Error rendering screen > [component://common/widget/CommonScreens.xml#GlobalDecorator]: > java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Error running Groovy script at location > [component://projectmgr/webapp/projectmgr/WEB-INF/actions/ListCurrentProjects.groovy]: > org.ofbiz.service.ServiceAuthException: You have no access to the project#: > 10040 (Error running Groovy script at location > [component://projectmgr/webapp/projectmgr/WEB-INF/actions/ListCurrentProjects.groovy]: > org.ofbiz.service.ServiceAuthException: You have no access to the project#: > 10040) > It defeats the point. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
Re: Vote: move to git.
Full ack for Adams remarks. There should be a +0.5 like „I like this idea, but the realization has to be well planned for a point in the future where the all over organization fits the needs for a different contribution process" ;-) So, +0.5 from me. Martin Becker ecomify GmbH www.ecomify.de > Am 05.05.2015 um 06:25 schrieb Adam Heath : > > This may be the nail in the coffin, at least for now, but +0, needs more > discussion/planning. I've been using git-svn for longer than most with > ofbiz, and would really love it if we were already using git, but it's just > too soon. > > Just because git is decentralized, doesn't mean that there is no longer a > center. *Someone* has to be pulling/merging all the branches, and who would > step up to that plate? Who would want to take on the mantel? I don't think > we as a community are ready to require that of someone. > > Of course, we need to start planning for this eventuality, imho, but we are > still a long ways off. > > ps: I, and others, will continue to use git in our upstream svn interactions, > as that seems to work well enough > > pps: as per Adrian's vote call, there is nothing actionable here. > > On 05/04/2015 10:01 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: >> As the discussions seem to end, can i propose a vote? >> >> The question : should we convert the master SVN repository of Apache OFBIz >> to a GIT version? >> The possible answers are according the apache voting guidelines at: >> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >> >> * >> >> +1: 'Yes lets do it' >> >> * +0: 'I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with this.' >> * >> >> -0.5: 'I don't like this idea, but I can't find any rational >> justification for my feelings.' >> >> * >> >> ++1: 'Wow! I like this! Let's /do/ it!' >> >> * >> >> -0.9: 'I /really/ don't like this, but I'm not going to stand in the >> way if everyone else wants to go ahead with it.' >> >> * >> >> +0.9: 'This is a cool idea and i like it, but I don't have time/the >> skills necessary to help out.' >> >> * -1 'I do not want this.' >> >> >> Votes will be possible for one week from today. >> >> Regards, >> Hans >> >> On 20/04/15 11:38, Hans Bakker wrote: >>> As discussed at apachecon in Austin, i propose to switch from svn to git >>> for the ofbiz repository. The main reason being that all major contributors >>> are using git and contributions are cumbersome, further, git allows for >>> better branching and merging. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Hans >> >
Re: Vote: move to git.
smime.p7m Description: S/MIME encrypted message
Re: Vote: move to git.
+0 Git is a great tool once you understand the mechanisms and get used to it. But I also think that it might be too early to make it the main source control for the project. It takes extra effort for some and the committers have to handle pull requests and such. With the other bigger sub projects in mind (Maven, Moqui etc.) I think we should not force it right now. The benefits are not that strong. Regards, Michael Brohl ecomify GmbH www.ecomify.de Am 05.05.15 um 05:01 schrieb Hans Bakker: As the discussions seem to end, can i propose a vote? The question : should we convert the master SVN repository of Apache OFBIz to a GIT version? The possible answers are according the apache voting guidelines at: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html * +1: 'Yes lets do it' * +0: 'I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with this.' * -0.5: 'I don't like this idea, but I can't find any rational justification for my feelings.' * ++1: 'Wow! I like this! Let's /do/ it!' * -0.9: 'I /really/ don't like this, but I'm not going to stand in the way if everyone else wants to go ahead with it.' * +0.9: 'This is a cool idea and i like it, but I don't have time/the skills necessary to help out.' * -1 'I do not want this.' Votes will be possible for one week from today. Regards, Hans On 20/04/15 11:38, Hans Bakker wrote: As discussed at apachecon in Austin, i propose to switch from svn to git for the ofbiz repository. The main reason being that all major contributors are using git and contributions are cumbersome, further, git allows for better branching and merging. Regards, Hans smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
[jira] [Commented] (OFBIZ-6329) Malfunction of configurable FTL-Template caching in DataResourceWorker.renderDataResourceAsText
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6329?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14528085#comment-14528085 ] Jacques Le Roux commented on OFBIZ-6329: We may ask Christian how he did it. Personally, normally I just change 1 or 2 things and it's OK, of course it's easier if it's in the "right" format from start. > Malfunction of configurable FTL-Template caching in > DataResourceWorker.renderDataResourceAsText > --- > > Key: OFBIZ-6329 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-6329 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Bug > Components: content >Affects Versions: Trunk >Reporter: Martin Becker > Attachments: OFBIZ-6329_FTL-Caching.patch, > OFBIZ-6329_Non-Template-Caching.patch > > > There are several problems with the current caching logic in > DataResourceWorker.renderDataResourceAsText(...). > Enabling the caching of rendered FTL-Templates from DataResources with the > property disable.ftl.template.cache in content.properties enables a > non-functioning block of code that handles the rendering of the cached > template. And if it is deactivated (default), the FTL-Templates are still > cached by the FreeMarkerWorker. > However the correct logic for caching and using the rendered FTL-Template is > already implemented in the FreeMarkerWorker and controlled by an optional > useCache parameter. > In addition there is an API call to DataResourceWorker.writeDataResourceText > for non template content with a static "true" for useCache instead of using > the given cache parameter value of the renderDataResourceAsText method > itself, so even if the caller do not want to use caching at all, the non > template text data is cached an FTL-Templates are cached also. > I will provide a patch for those two issues in the mentioned method. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)
Re: Vote: move to git.
Am 05.05.2015 05:01, schrieb Hans Bakker: > As the discussions seem to end, can i propose a vote? +0 I personally prefer git anytime over svn, but it seems a few people are not comfortable with git (yet). I'm using it already with ofbiz locally (no commit via git yet but will try it soon) Christian
