[SPRV] v2 of AFF created and added

[delucapietro]

New functionality (custom actions) and a new field to display in the ADT editor where added. Therefore a new version (v2) for the AFF was created. I added the files next to the existing v1 ones. Maybe the v1 need to be deleted? Please check and let me know.

[Markus1812]

Hey @delucapietro I have noticed you added a non-mandatory field. The documentation states that technically, you don't need a new format version in this case. Are you sure you want to increase the version to v2?

[delucapietro]

Hey @Markus1812,

the field itself (implementing class) is filled by coding not directly as an editor or wizard input. When I understood the general AFF distribution the new field would also be visible in "lower" releases in ADT where the application coding is not released so it would be empty, right? As the information "no implementing class" is always wrong I decided to update the v2 instead of an empty field.

[Markus1812]

the field itself (implementing class) is filled by coding not directly as an editor or wizard input.

Is the implementingClass a calculated field and does it need to be transported?

[delucapietro]

the field itself (implementing class) is filled by coding not directly as an editor or wizard input.

Is the implementingClass a calculated field and does it need to be transported?

Kind of calculated. The SPRV creates proxy objects. The main proxy object creates an implementing class. Everything is done "automatically" during the creation phase. As proxy objects are not displayed in ADT it is really easy to find the correct implementing class after activation if the customer is creating multiple SPRVs in the same package e.g. with multiple users at the same time which are named similarly. So the value is indeed determined but it is referencing a dependent class.

[delucapietro]

the field itself (implementing class) is filled by coding not directly as an editor or wizard input.

Is the implementingClass a calculated field and does it need to be transported?

Kind of calculated. The SPRV creates proxy objects. The main proxy object creates an implementing class. Everything is done "automatically" during the creation phase. As proxy objects are not displayed in ADT it is really easy to find the correct implementing class after activation if the customer is creating multiple SPRVs in the same package e.g. with multiple users at the same time which are named similarly. So the value is indeed determined but it is referencing a dependent class.

• correction: it is not easy to find the implementing class ;)

[Markus1812]

The SPRV creates proxy objects. The main proxy object creates an implementing class.

Are the proxy object and the implementing class also transported with a SPRV object?

[delucapietro]

The SPRV creates proxy objects. The main proxy object creates an implementing class.

Are the proxy object and the implementing class also transported with a SPRV object?

All objects are transported together. The SPRV is always connected to the main proxy object (not bi-directional , the proxy object does not know about the SPRV) and the implementing class is dependent on the proxy object. SPRV is just a wrapper object for the cloud as the proxy objects (SPRX) are not and should not be released for the cloud directly

[Markus1812]

Thank you for the clarification about the implementationClass field. From my point of view, the version does not need to be updated to v2, but this is completely up to you. If you decide to up the version to v2, further changes with compatibility are probably needed.

[Markus1812]

We decided to stay with version 1 as all changes are compatible and do not need a version upgrade. Further changes are proposed in a new Pull Request.