Skip to content
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -52,8 +52,14 @@ THE SOFTWARE.
<f:form method="post" action="configSubmit" name="config">
<j:forEach var="parameterValue" items="${paramAction.parameters}">
<j:set var="valuePage" value="${parameterValue.class.simpleName}" />
<st:include it="${parameterValue}"
from="${it}" page="${valuePage}.jelly" />
<j:catch var="ex">
<st:include it="${parameterValue}"
from="${it}" page="${valuePage}.jelly"/>
</j:catch>
<j:if test="${ex != null and ex.toString().contains('No page found')}">
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure that this check is OK, because it relies on non-documented text, etc. I suppose it should be implemented in the Java code. I suppose that it can be implemented using small patch in #17

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That makes sense - changing the Jelly seemed like a least intrusive patch, but "No page found" is merely human readable text and my code here is treating it as protocol.

<st:include it="${parameterValue}"
from="${it}" page="StringParameterValue.jelly"/>
</j:if>
</j:forEach>
<br/>
<br/>
Expand All @@ -63,4 +69,4 @@ THE SOFTWARE.
</f:form>
</l:main-panel>
</l:layout>
</j:jelly>
</j:jelly>