Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Prerequisites
Description
PR #15318 causes a regression in adding artifact dependencies to
ArtifactDependencyCollectionfor the same UDI, but with a different ordering flag set. Instead of not adding the artifact when the dependency mode was the same, the logic was changed to only prevent downgrading it fromArtifactDependencyMode.MatchtoArtifactDependencyMode.Exist. So dependencies with the same mode would override an already added one and thereby potentially reset the ordering flag.Deploy actually relied on this implementation detail, because a dependency to the parent content node would first be added using
new ArtifactDependency(art.Parent, true, ArtifactDependencyMode.Exist)(with ordering enabled), before any dependencies/references within the content were added later. As long as the mode wasn't upgraded toMatch(which wouldn't make sense for referenced content), the ordering flag from the first added dependency would still be used. However, because this isn't the case anymore, if the content references the parent node and adds a dependency usingnew ArtifactDependency(udi, false, ArtifactDependencyMode.Exist)(with ordering disabled), Deploy won't ensure the parent gets processed before any of it's children and you can get aProcessArtifactExceptionwith a message saying it can't find the parent 😢To properly fix this, I've ensured both the
OrderingandModeproperties can be internally set and existing dependencies are updated to only 'upgrade' the values (exist to match and non-ordering to ordering). I've also added new tests to verify this.