Entities should not all be assets

[dnebing]

if you remove the asset: {} attribute from an application definition in base.json, many of the templates (at least in 7.2 where I've been testing) fail throwing numerous FM errors with the null object.

When building a complex application with multiple entities in a service, there will often times need to be a mix of entities, some entities will be assets, but other entities have no reason having asset functionality.

Take Liferay's MessageBoards service as an example. In the single service.xml file for the service module, MBMessage is absolutely defined as an asset because, well, it is an asset. But there are many other entities in there, including for example MBStatsUser which has no asset fields at all because it should never be treated like an asset.

[icarrara]

Tested with 7.3 templates and the issue is the same.

Used the attached base.json with three entities. Removed the asset: {} attribute from two entities.

Done 'damascus create' and I got 21 errors cause the below fields are null: application.asset.assetTitleFieldName and 'application.asset.assetSummaryFieldName'.

Then I surrounded the statements in templates that refer to the above fields with: `<#if (application.asset.assetSummaryFieldName)??>

` `<#if (application.asset.assetSummaryFieldName)??> ` I added the above code to the below templates: - Portlet_XXXXSVC_LocalServiceImpl.java.ftl - Portlet_XXXXSVC_ModelDocumentContributor.java.ftl - Portlet_XXXXSVC_portlet-model-hints.xml.ftl - Portlet_XXXXSVC_Validator.java.ftl - Portlet_XXXXWEB_abstract.jsp.ftl - Portlet_XXXXWEB_admin_abstract.jsp.ftl - Portlet_XXXXWEB_admin_edit.jsp.ftl - Portlet_XXXXWEB_admin_full_content.jsp.ftl - Portlet_XXXXWEB_admin_view_record.jsp.ftl - Portlet_XXXXWEB_AssetRenderer.java.ftl - Portlet_XXXXWEB_edit.jsp.ftl - Portlet_XXXXWEB_full_content.jsp.ftl - Portlet_XXXXWEB_preview.jsp.ftl - Portlet_XXXXWEB_view_record.jsp.ftl After that 'damascus create' done without errors and code was generated. Unfortunately I made some errors in Portlet_XXXXSVC_LocalServiceImpl.java.ftl template so 'blade deploy' fails to compile service code. Here ends my knowledge to modify further the templates.

[dnebing]

I had an additional error in 7.2 in service.xml.ftl because the title and summary fields cannot be missing, null or empty.

For my changes, instead of wrapping in an additional check, I changed the lines to something like:

<#if application.asset?? && application.asset.assetTitleFieldName?? && application.asset.assetTitleFieldName != "" >

[icarrara]

I'll try your change in 7.3 but I can't find service.xml.ftl template anywhere. I checked both 7.2 and 7.3 templates...

[dnebing]

Sorry, it is actually just service.xml, doesn't have the ftl extension on it.

[icarrara]

Moreover, how you changed code without some IF already in place?

For example in Portlet_XXXXSVC_LocalServiceImpl.java.ftl at line 586:

entry.set${application.asset.assetTitleFieldName?cap_first}(""); entry.set${application.asset.assetSummaryFieldName?cap_first}("");

[dnebing]

I didn't get all the way through the files like you have, Ivano. I got far enough to know it was an issue, just not how wide-ranging it was.

[yasuflatland-lf]

@dnebing As we discussed yesterday on Slack, we may want to create a separate template for the Non-Asset version to avoid complexity.

The reasons why I want to separate the templates for each purpose are:

• Increasing flags in templates are error-prone. Testing generated code is time-consuming, even taking full advantage of unit testing, and it occupies a large percentage of template generation in my experience. It causes of spoiling maintainability for upgrading templates for newer versions.
• Asset framework is associated with Search and other many functionalities, so having a separate template for Non-asset implemented version would reduce the maintenance cost aside from maintaining 2 templates for a version.

[icarrara]

@yasuflatland-lf

Will this solution allow you to use a single base.json definition file containing a mix of entities, some entities with asset: {} attribute and other without asset: {} attribute ?

I'm referring to the @dnebing 's example of Liferay's MessageBoards service.

[yasuflatland-lf]

This marks as won't fix due to the reasons as follows

• Configurable assets dependency of the code is not easy to handle, but removing assets are sort of easy after generated files.
• I've not encountered cases where Assets is unnecessarily. The real production use cases that I know of is generating Master management (Database Table manipulation for Administration) tools. It looks like leaving Asset related code did not bother them for maintenance later on.