Skip to content

fix 289 addDataEntity no longer supports toHasPart parameter#298

Merged
Pfeil merged 25 commits intodevelopmentfrom
289-adddataentity-no-longer-supports-tohaspart-parameter
Nov 10, 2025
Merged

fix 289 addDataEntity no longer supports toHasPart parameter#298
Pfeil merged 25 commits intodevelopmentfrom
289-adddataentity-no-longer-supports-tohaspart-parameter

Conversation

@Pfeil
Copy link
Member

@Pfeil Pfeil commented Nov 4, 2025

PR for #289, with plan to do a release candidate before closing the issue.

Two solution approaches that I'd like to publish as a release candidate:

  1. addDataEntity(entity, parentId)
  • implementation
  • testing and fixing
  1. a functionality to represent the folder structure using hasPart and optional isPartOf automatically, as indicated by the IDs / file names
  • tests
  • implementation
  1. Other
  • See where we can reduce code (it is currently in parts a bit verbose, not sure if a builder makes sense everywhere)
  • Make sure to maximize test coverage

@Pfeil Pfeil self-assigned this Nov 4, 2025
@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Nov 4, 2025

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment
  • Commit unit tests in branch 289-adddataentity-no-longer-supports-tohaspart-parameter

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@Pfeil Pfeil linked an issue Nov 5, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
@Pfeil Pfeil force-pushed the 289-adddataentity-no-longer-supports-tohaspart-parameter branch from 0cfcd64 to 8ced011 Compare November 5, 2025 11:22
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Nov 5, 2025

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build #568

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

Details

  • 231 of 248 (93.15%) changed or added relevant lines in 8 files are covered.
  • 1 unchanged line in 1 file lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage increased (+0.07%) to 91.228%

Changes Missing Coverage Covered Lines Changed/Added Lines %
src/main/java/edu/kit/datamanager/ro_crate/util/FileSystemUtil.java 15 16 93.75%
src/main/java/edu/kit/datamanager/ro_crate/hierarchy/HierarchyRecognitionResult.java 12 14 85.71%
src/main/java/edu/kit/datamanager/ro_crate/hierarchy/HierarchyRecognition.java 86 91 94.51%
src/main/java/edu/kit/datamanager/ro_crate/RoCrate.java 65 74 87.84%
Files with Coverage Reduction New Missed Lines %
src/main/java/edu/kit/datamanager/ro_crate/entities/data/DataSetEntity.java 1 97.14%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build #521: 0.07%
Covered Lines: 2236
Relevant Lines: 2451

💛 - Coveralls

@Pfeil Pfeil force-pushed the 289-adddataentity-no-longer-supports-tohaspart-parameter branch from ba7fae0 to a741dc4 Compare November 5, 2025 15:40
We still use it internally, but I plan to replace it at some point in future. We should be able to generate at least basically valid entities from external providers. And if not we can still work around this with a custom, private subclass of RoCrate.
@Pfeil Pfeil merged commit c23df4f into development Nov 10, 2025
8 checks passed
@Pfeil Pfeil deleted the 289-adddataentity-no-longer-supports-tohaspart-parameter branch November 10, 2025 11:15
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants