search

telefonicaid / fiware-orion

Context Broker and CEF building block for context data management, providing NGSI interfaces.
https://github.com/telefonicaid/fiware-orion/blob/master/doc/manuals/orion-api.md
GNU Affero General Public License v3.0
210 stars 265 forks source link

Extend the pattern concept to attribute values #978

Closed fgalan closed 6 years ago

fgalan commented 9 years ago

OMA NGSI only considers patterns in entity ID. To that end, the ?idPattern parameter has been defined (see https://github.com/telefonicaid/fiware-orion/issues/969).

However it would be useful to implement also pattern for entity type and attribute values. A way of fitting it in OMA NGSI has to be found, but, by the moment, the following has been suggested:

fgalan commented 9 years ago

As alterantive, ~= could be used as operator for attribute pattern matching.

fgalan commented 9 years ago

Another possiblity is to use ~= which seems to be more aligned with Perl or Ruby. The final decision, either ~= or =~ (or other :) is deferred until the time to implement this issue comes.

fgalan commented 8 years ago

Originally this issue covers also patterns for entity types. However, that part has been "moved" to https://github.com/telefonicaid/fiware-orion/issues/1853

fgalan commented 8 years ago

The final decision, either ~= or =~ (or other :) is deferred until the time to implement this issue comes.

Time has come :)

I'll finally use ~= which is aligned with

!=
>=
<=
~=
fgalan commented 8 years ago

Implementation in PR #2081. Documentation changes in PR #2088.

fgalan commented 8 years ago

Moving to QATestPending milestone while the functional test covering this are implemented.

iariasleon commented 8 years ago

still it has not been developed ?typePattern for entity type pattern? Only New operator for ?q filter

fgalan commented 8 years ago

That's correct: the present issue is about ~= for attribute values pattern. Note that ?typePattern has its own issue (#1853).

fgalan commented 6 years ago

Issues in milestone QATestPending are going to be closed (it is not realistic to think we would have people working on behave testing at the present moment). However, issue is labeles with QATestPending label in the case thinks change and we need to recover it.