# Request fort commit

**Category:** [Reference Implementation: Java (archive)](https://discourse.openehr.org/c/reference-implementation-java-archive/154)
**Created:** 2008-07-18 12:57 UTC
**Views:** 9
**Replies:** 6
**URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/request-fort-commit/13027

---

## Post #1 by @system

Hi Rong,

TRUNK code is mixed up with referenceUid and referenceID \(in
small/uppercase\)\. The referenceID is legacy\. It exists in some files,
and other have the referenceUid\.

I cleaned it up in my code according the specifications \(changed all
referenceID to referenceUid, also getters setters, etc\.\)\. I occured more
than I suspected, also in all inherited objects of version,
folderversion, etc\. in testfiles\.\.\.\.

I also changed it in my local copy of the svn TRUNK code, and I can
commit it if you want\.

I ask this before, because, in my system, which is not totally
synchronizable with your code, I cannot test\-build your code\. I could do
that, but it would cost me hours to build up a good environment, which
does not conflict with my develop\-environment

So if I commit these changes, you probably have to test\-build your code,
and repair what I forgot \(which will not be much, I used search\-tools to
find the old names, but you never know, maybe a typo\)\.

So, knowing that you have to test\-build the code, do you still want me
to commit the changes?

Bert

---

## Post #2 by @system

Hi Bert,

Thanks for the report. Since we are very close to release 1.0.1 now I would like you _not_ to commit your copy (possibly with your extensions/changes).

I will try to fix this myself. Please let me know if you know any other anomalies that could be fixed before release [**MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "1.0.1" claiming to be** **MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious:** 1.0.1.](http://1.0.1.)

Cheers,
Rong

---

## Post #3 by @system

Bert,

I just ran a search on my local copy of the Trunk but didn't get any hit on either "referenceID" or "referenceUid". Did you mean "uid" and "id" in your mail? Can you point at any specific classes?

Cheers,
Rong

---

## Post #4 by @system

Rong Chen schreef:

> Bert,
>
> I just ran a search on my local copy of the Trunk but didn't get any hit on either "referenceID" or "referenceUid". Did you mean "uid" and "id" in your mail? Can you point at any specific classes?

Excuse me for being to quick in typing

This is part the constructor of OriginalVersion

---

## Post #5 by @system

Rong Chen schreef:

> Hi Bert,
>
> Thanks for the report. Since we are very close to release 1.0.1 now I would like you _not_ to commit your copy (possibly with your extensions/changes).
>
> I will try to fix this myself. Please let me know if you know any other anomalies that could be fixed before release [**MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "1.0.1" claiming to be** **MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious:** 1.0.1.](http://1.0.1.)

Ok, fine, I will then adjust my sources to the changes you make, after you fixed the issue (which is rather unimportant)

I don't know what the mailscanner-message does in your posting, I think we can safely ignore it.

thanks
Bert

---

## Post #6 by @system

Rong Chen schreef:
> Bert,
>
> I just ran a search on my local copy of the Trunk but didn't get any
> hit on either "referenceID" or "referenceUid"\. Did you mean "uid" and
> "id" in your mail? Can you point at any specific classes?

I had worked to hard when I typed this message, the fix, however is OK\.
\(I just double checked it\)

Sorry for the inconvenience

Bert

---

## Post #7 by @system

No problems. =)
/Rong

---


**Canonical:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/request-fort-commit/13027
**Original content:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/request-fort-commit/13027