Skip to content
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

clarify LSC 2.1 documentation about createValues and defaultValues #216

Closed
davidcoutadeur opened this issue Jun 6, 2023 · 2 comments
Closed
Assignees

Comments

@davidcoutadeur
Copy link
Contributor

Currently, there is a table describing the policy:

<createValues/> 	If no <forceValues/> are specified, no values are read from the source, and a new entry is being added, the attribute will be created with values from <createValues/> 	If no <forceValues/> are specified, and a new entry is being added, the attribute will be created with values from <createValues/> and values from the source
<defaultValues/> 	If no <forceValues/> are specified, no values are read from the source, and the attribute doesn't yet exist in the destination, it is created in an existing entry with values from <defaultValues/> 	If no <forceValues/> are specified, values from <defaultValues/> are added, as well as any source values, to existing destination values 

It is ambiguous and should be clarified:

<createValues/> 	
If: 
* no <forceValues/> are specified, 
* no values are read from the source, and
* a new entry is being added, 
THEN the attribute will be created with values from <createValues/> 

<defaultValues/>
If: 
* no <forceValues/> are specified, 
* no values are read from the source, and 
* the attribute doesn't yet exist in the destination, 
THEN it is created in an existing entry with values from <defaultValues/>

This is to be done in 2.1 documentation only, because in 2.2 this behaviour may be redefined.

@davidcoutadeur davidcoutadeur self-assigned this Jun 6, 2023
@davidcoutadeur
Copy link
Contributor Author

See also #217

@davidcoutadeur
Copy link
Contributor Author

For the record, it is fixed in the new sphinx documentation

@coudot coudot closed this as completed Oct 12, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants