FWD » Core Development » Base Language

This task is mean for completing the runtime support for ClientPrincipal:TENANT-ID and ClientPrincipal:TENANT-NAME.
Conversion support and STUB runtime support is implemented in 9436b rev. 15885.
This minimal test was used:

define variable client as handle no-undo.
define variable tokenValue as character no-undo.
define variable domainAccessCode as character no-undo initial "MyAccessCode".

create client-principal client.

client:user-id = "MyUser".
client:domain-name = "MyDomain".
client:session-id = "MySessionID".

client:seal(domainAccessCode).

assign tokenValue = string(client:tenant-id).
message "Tenant ID:" tokenValue view-as alert-box.

assign tokenValue = client:tenant-name.
message "Tenant Name:" tokenValue view-as alert-box.

delete object client no-error.

• full support for conversion of the methods (all signatures);
• core runtime implementation for normal usage (when CP is populated with data or not yet);

• I think the relation with TenantManager is not optimal and might be a bit adjusted;
• still missing the gap information;
• multiple databases not supported.

I expect to commit the week a new revision to address the above issues. Since the implementation it is not very intrusive, minimal testing is necessary.

• In ClientPrincipal.setLoginExpirationTimestamp, at line ts = new datetimetz(); // TODO: what happens with this variable? I think there are three options:
  • The date is set to default and then it should be placed in the attributes like: attributes.put(AttrInfo.LOGIN_EXPIRATION_TIMESTAMP, Optional.of(ts));
  • Or, after the date is set to default, maybe a log or exception should take place.
  • Or, the date should not be defaulted to a certain value. In other words, remove the assignment.
  • This depends on what 4GL does: does it change the value of the variable? Does it throw an error? Does it work, but the value is changed?. I'm not sure about how trivial is to create such an example, but it might be worth investigating.
• Just a small typo in the javadocs of ClientPrincipal.getTenantId() (all three methods) and ClientPrincipal.getTenantName() (all three methods) + the same functions from ClientPrincipalResource: it should be enabled database instead of enable database.
• This one is just me being really picky: the tenant name keyword is defined as kw_tenname. Can we have it as the other keywords, with underscore between words (i.e. kw_ten_name)?

Functionally, I see nothing wrong in the code.

Branch 9955a has only additive changes (added conversion support for those two methods, runtime support for them and updated gap information). No changes are required in the configuration or FWD environment.

The branch was tested for runtime, but not for conversion, except hotel_gui and for my isolated testcase. I asked Eugenie for help with conversion of a large customer application. I previously executed the unit-tests of same app and the harness smoke-test another one. They finished all with success.

Eugenie just confirmed that the conversion test was successful, as expected: the generated code is not changed from the trunk version.

Ovidiu, you are missing @Override for the ClientPrincipal added methods. Also, do TENANT-ID() and TENANT-NAME() builtin functions still convert properly?

Constantin Asofiei wrote:

Ovidiu, you are missing @Override for the ClientPrincipal added methods. Also, do TENANT-ID() and TENANT-NAME() builtin functions still convert properly?

Thank you for noticing that. The functions were already implemented in DatabaseManager as static methods.

I will do a rebase and redo the tests. Also I will ask Eugenie to do a conversion test, again, since there were some conflicts when I did the last rebase and some execution paths might have been affected.

Ovidiu - please rebase now.

Done.
Pushed up to revision 16215.