summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/common/src/test/java/org/openecomp/mso/utils/RootIgnoringObjectMapperTest.java
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorFilesLines
2018-07-31Containerization feature of SOBenjamin, Max (mb388a)1-94/+0
Change-Id: I95381232eeefcd247a66a5cec370a8ce1c288e18 Issue-ID: SO-670 Signed-off-by: Benjamin, Max (mb388a) <mb388a@us.att.com>
2018-05-15WorkflowResponse json issuesRob Daugherty1-0/+94
This commit adds some robustness to the interface between the API-H and BPMN, specifically, in how the response is handled. I don't have proof, but there appears to be some randomness to the json provider behavior when used with the jax-rs. Sometimes, the serializer is adding the root element, and sometimes it is not. Maybe there's something wrong with the configuration. Maybe we have competing json providers. I couldn't pin this down. I'm almost certain it is the presence of the root element in the content that causes the API-H code to fail parsing of the BPMN response. This doesn't kill the request, as you might expect, but rather, the API-H passes the BPMN response through to the client (VID, or policy, or whatever). The original problem (SO-586) was "fixed" by "removing the wrapper". This "wrapper" is a needed feature of the interface between BPMN and the API-H. We shouldn't have removed it. The fact that the "fix" appeared to work is due to the behavior I described in the previous paragraph. The API-H chokes on the message, and it passes it through unchanged. Not really what we want. So, I don't know why the jackson/json behavior is flaky and different now, but I can (and did) modify the API-H so it can parse a json message whether or not it has a root element. Note that WorkflowResponse.java (in BPMN) and CamundaResponse.java (in the API-H) are basically the same bean representing the message format. Seems less than ideal to have two different classes. Also note that I changed the name of the "response" attribute of the WorkflowResponse and CamundaResponse classes to "content". Got tired of seeing this nonsense everywhere in the code: response.getResponse() Change-Id: Icaf70f8457de99e493cf882170fe778c620308c9 Issue-ID: SO-586 Issue-ID: SO-618 Signed-off-by: Rob Daugherty <rd472p@att.com>