-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 251
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
feat: split Dtos in InputDto and OutputDto for Asset and ContractDefinition #1797
feat: split Dtos in InputDto and OutputDto for Asset and ContractDefinition #1797
Conversation
I have not yet looked at this in greater detail, but my inner monk somehow would immediately feel more comfortable if they were named |
@paullatzelsperger makes total sense to me. Done |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1797 +/- ##
=============================================
- Coverage 67.78% 10.63% -57.15%
- Complexity 0 485 +485
=============================================
Files 800 802 +2
Lines 16977 17022 +45
Branches 1080 1080
=============================================
- Hits 11508 1811 -9697
- Misses 4999 15126 +10127
+ Partials 470 85 -385
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. |
What this PR changes/adds
Split
AssetDto
inAssetInputDto
andAssetOutputDto
ContractDefinitionDto
inContractDefinitionInputDto
andContractDefinitionOutputDto
Why it does that
To improve APIs, as currently the spec are stating that a
createdAt
field can be passed from the client, but that's not true as that field is valued by the EDC itselfFurther notes
TransformerContextImpl
andDtoTransformerContext
that were the pretty much the same class.id
s, as they shouldn't be mandatory from the client but they should be created by the EDC as random UUID by default (as done forPolicyDefinition
,ContractNegotiation
,TransferProcess
andDataRequest
)Linked Issue(s)
Closes #1796
Checklist
no-changelog
)