refactor: Use rdf for create value
- Introduce KnoraApiValueModel
- add creation date
- add hasermission move code up the for comprehension
- add hasPermission and move code up the for comprehension
- cleanup
- move jena related code to JenaOps
- Introduce ValueIri
- Introduce ResourceIri
- Introduce ResourceClassIri
- Introduce PropertyIri
- add value type to KnoraApiValueModel
- Introduce dedicated Jena Ops classes for Resource and Statement
- *Add more ValueContentV2 parsing
Pull Request Checklist
Task Description/Number
Issue Number: DEV-
PR Type
- [ ] build/chore: maintenance tasks (no production code change)
- [ ] docs: documentation changes (no production code change)
- [ ] feat: represents new features
- [ ] fix: represents bug fixes
- [ ] perf: performance improvements
- [ ] refactor: represents production code refactoring
- [ ] test: adding or refactoring tests (no production code change)
- [ ] deprecated: Deprecation warning (ideally referencing a migration guide)
Basic requirements for bug fixes and features
- [ ] Tests for the changes have been added
- [ ] Docs have been added / updated
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
- [ ] Yes
Codecov Report
Attention: Patch coverage is 76.53333% with 88 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 18.64%. Comparing base (
6ebe8e7) to head (39e1817). Report is 120 commits behind head on main.
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3410 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 83.04% 18.64% -64.40%
===========================================
Files 290 309 +19
Lines 23087 23014 -73
===========================================
- Hits 19172 4291 -14881
- Misses 3915 18723 +14808
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
@BalduinLandolt I do understand for your desire of having more "realistic" values in the tests. My goal was to have minimal test data in the newly created tests. The other more complicated cases are covered by the existing tests. I leave these values in the test as to demonstrate that these are valid values.
Should you think that those values are not valid we may want to follow up on that.
@BalduinLandolt I do understand for your desire of having more "realistic" values in the tests. My goal was to have minimal test data in the newly created tests. The other more complicated cases are covered by the existing tests. I leave these values in the test as to demonstrate that these are valid values.
Should you think that those values are not valid we may want to follow up on that.
Fine by me, I'm not even sure we need to follow up on it. Thanks