Issue #2466 - Union Entity: reliable identification of the active property name #2605
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
activePropertyName will never be equal to the empty string.
1. Instrumentation just to get the active property name is no longer necessary. 2. The assertion in TinyHyperlinkDao should remain. It protects against invalid arguments -- empty union entities. 3. EntityUtils.instrument should remain. Its use in EntityExistsValidator.handleUnionEntityValue is unrelated to activePropertyName() or activeEntity(). It is used there to validate a union entity instance, as only instrumented entities can be validated.
01es
requested changes
Dec 18, 2025
Member
01es
left a comment
01es
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Need to investigate the effect of changes in activePropertyName() as communicated in Slack.
… query result instantiation
01es
approved these changes
Dec 18, 2025
homedirectory
changed the title
AbstractUnionEntity.activePropertyName() can fail to identify an active property
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Resolve #2466
To be completed by the pull request creator
This section should be completed with reference to section Preparing PR of the Code and PR reviews wiki page.
Create the pull request as a draft by tapping the dropdown arrow on the 'Create pull request' button under the pull request description (below the text box where this description is being edited) and changing the default
Create pull requesttoDraft pull request.Or, if the pull request has already been created, convert it to draft by tapping the "Convert to draft" link beneath the "Reviewers" section.
A self-review of all changes has been completed, and the changes are in sync with the issue requirements.
Changes to the requirements have been reflected in the issue description.
Any "leftovers" such as sysouts, printing of stack traces, and any other "temporary" code, have been removed.
Minor refactorings, such as renamings, extraction of constants, etc., have been addressed.
Developer documentation (e.g., comments, Javadoc), have been provided where required.
New Java tests have been written or existing tests adjusted, if required, to cover the new functionality.
All existing and new Java tests pass successfully by running them with Maven.
All existing and new Web tests pass successfully.
Changes have been inspected for possible NPE situations, and the changes are sufficiently defensive.
The correct base branch has been selected for these changes to be merged into.
The latest changes from the base branch have already been merged into this feature branch (and tested).
This pull request does not contain significant changes, and at least one appropriate reviewer has been selected.
The
In progresslabel has been removed from the issue.The
Pull requestlabel has been added to the issue.The pull request has been made ready for review by tapping the "Ready for review" button below the list of commits on the pull request page.
To be completed by the pull request reviewer
This section should be completed with reference to section Performing PR review of the Code and PR reviews wiki page.
The
In progresslabel has been added to the pull request in GitHub.The issue requirements have been read and understood (along with any relevant emails and/or Slack messages).
The correct base branch is specified, and that base branch is up-to-date in the local source.
The issue branch has been checked out locally, and had the base branch merged into it.
All automated tests pass successfully.
Ensure the implementation satisfies the functional requirements.
Ensure that code changes are secure and align with the established coding practices, including code formatting and naming conventions.
Ensure that code changes are documented and covered with automated tests as applicable.
Ensure that code changes are well-suited for informal reasoning.
Ensure that changes are documented for the end-user (a software engineer in the case of TG, or an application user in the case of TG-based applications).
If there are significant changes (described above), special attention has been paid to them.
Marked the task items in section "Significant changes" as completed to indicate that corresponding changes have been reviewed, improved if necessary, and approved.
The issue or issues addressed by the pull request are associated with the relevant release milestone.
To be completed by the pull request reviewer once the changes have been reviewed and accepted
The changes have been merged into the base branch (unless there is a specific request not to do so, e.g., they are to be released to SIT).
The issue branch has been deleted (unless the changes have not been merged - see above, or there is a specific request not to do so).
The
In progresslabel has been removed from the pull request.The
Pull requestlabel has been removed from the issue.