IBX-9511: Fixed incorrect object type in PolicyValueResolver#1442
Merged
IBX-9511: Fixed incorrect object type in PolicyValueResolver#1442
Conversation
|
adamwojs
approved these changes
Feb 7, 2025
Steveb-p
approved these changes
Feb 7, 2025
tomaszszopinski
approved these changes
Feb 7, 2025
Contributor
tomaszszopinski
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
QA approved on Ibexa DXP 5.0 oss
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.



Related PRs:
Description:
This PR fixes incorrect expectation and usage of object returned by
RoleService::loadRoleAPI.I can't find any occurence where that API would return
RoleDraftinstead ofRole. For that we have a separate API.So, that means we need more extensive manual QA, because maybe I'm missing something.
Note: Behat fails due to unmerged DXP PRs.
For QA:
PolicyValueResolver is used for Admin -> Roles:
however it would be nice to have here more manual tests around that module, as there's probably a reson the code was written as it was.