GPP4.5: Functional tests for custom logic functionality
#2494
Conversation
osulzhenko
force-pushed
the
tests-gpp-custom-logic
branch
from
a2f4637 to
077f004
Compare
osulzhenko
force-pushed
the
tests-gpp-full-support
branch
from
939ce62 to
72fdacd
Compare
osulzhenko
force-pushed
the
tests-gpp-custom-logic
branch
from
077f004 to
8c541da
Compare
osulzhenko
changed the base branch from
master
to
add-custom-logic-privacy-module
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
osulzhenko
force-pushed
the
tests-gpp-custom-logic
branch
from
cbd715a to
2c84835
Compare
| geneticId = virginiaSensitiveData.geneticId | ||
| biometricId = virginiaSensitiveData.biometricId | ||
| geolocation = virginiaSensitiveData.geolocation | ||
| idNumbers = 0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated, but also be aware that I returned:
SENSITIVE_DATA_RACIAL_ETHNIC_ORIGIN(UspNatV1Field.SENSITIVE_DATA_PROCESSING + 1),
SENSITIVE_DATA_RELIGIOUS_BELIEFS(UspNatV1Field.SENSITIVE_DATA_PROCESSING + 2),
It's required for normalizing tests
osulzhenko
force-pushed
the
tests-gpp-custom-logic
branch
from
c2777ee to
75f2209
Compare
osulzhenko
force-pushed
the
tests-gpp-custom-logic
branch
from
75f2209 to
d292aa5
Compare
|
|
||
| static ModuleConfig getDefaultModuleConfig(List<GppSectionId> sids = [GppSectionId.USP_NAT_V1], | ||
| static ModuleConfig getDefaultModuleConfig(ActivityConfig activityConfig = ActivityConfig.configWithDefaultRestrictRules, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Was there a reason why parameter order doesn't correspond to the field order?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The field order was changed due to multiple parameter uses. I adjusted the field order of the class.
| new LogicalRestrictedRule() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| static LogicalRestrictedRule generateSolidRestriction(LogicalOperation logicalOperator, List<ValueRestrictedRule> valueOperations) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What does solid mean in this case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I used solid meaning that we will have a single logic rule with multiple valueRules. The name was changed to generateSingleRestrictedRule
| TRANSMIT_PRECISE_GEO("transmitPreciseGeo") | ||
|
|
||
| @JsonValue | ||
| String value |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good habit is to have this kind of fields final
| @Override | ||
| EqualityValueRule deserialize(JsonParser jsonParser, DeserializationContext deserializationContext) throws IOException, JacksonException { | ||
| JsonNode node = jsonParser.getCodec().readTree(jsonParser) | ||
| def privacySection = UsNationalPrivacySection.valueFromText(node.get(0).get(JSON_LOGIC_VALUE_FIELD).textValue()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be good to use null-safe reference in this and related classes.
Example: node?.get(0)?.get(JSON_LOGIC_VALUE_FIELD)?.textValue()
| @Override | ||
| InequalityValueRule deserialize(JsonParser jsonParser, DeserializationContext deserializationContext) throws IOException, JacksonException { | ||
| JsonNode node = jsonParser.getCodec().readTree(jsonParser) | ||
| def privacySection = UsNationalPrivacySection.valueFromText(node.get(0).get(JSON_LOGIC_VALUE_FIELD).textValue()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same about null-safety as in previous comment.
| class LogicalRestrictedRule { | ||
|
|
||
| @JsonProperty("==") | ||
| EqualityValueRule equalRule |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please be consistent with the naming. Looks like this should be called equalityRule
|
|
||
| @ToString(includeNames = true, ignoreNulls = true) | ||
| @JsonDeserialize(using = EqualityValueRuleDeserialize.class) | ||
| class EqualityValueRule extends ValueRestrictedRule{ |
No description provided.