Support camunda:executionListener with implementationType property binding

[AlexanderSkrock]

Before this change we only evaluated the special case for scripts. For everything else we always used the value property. But for some cases e. g. class-based execution listeners we need actually need to set the "class" attribute instead. Also, this align with the json schema definition.

Closes #13

Note: I had to reopen, because I deleted my fork when cleaning up my repos... Forgot about the open pull request. See #15

[barmac]

Hi, thanks for the PR. In order to make the feature complete, we'd also need to:

• prepare a documentation update (https://docs.camunda.io/docs/next/components/modeler/desktop-modeler/element-templates/c7-defining-templates/#camundaexecutionlistener)
• update the schema to enforce either scriptFormat or name, but not both

[AlexanderSkrock]

Hi, @barmac ,
of course I would take on these two tasks as well!

Changes to the json schema should be proposed with a pull request here, right?
=> https://github.com/camunda/element-templates-json-schema

Could you give me a hint which repository contains the documentation, I was not able to find any files for this in the camunda-modeler repo.
=> Edit: This repo, right? https://github.com/camunda/camunda-platform-docs/tree/main/docs/components/modeler/desktop-modeler/element-templates

Kind regards
Alexander Skrock

[barmac]

Hi,

I am happy that you want to complete the loop :)

Both repos are the ones where we'd need to implement the changes. For the documentation, you'd need to look into this file specifically: https://github.com/camunda/camunda-platform-docs/blob/main/docs/components/modeler/desktop-modeler/element-templates/c7-defining-templates.md

Looking forward to your contributions!

[AlexanderSkrock]

Hi again @barmac ,

sorry for coming back to you again.

I just attempted to write documentation and realized that while name totally makes sense from the implementation side, it is not as intuitive for using it.

Once again name aligns with the attribute that is used for defining properties with a binding and basically that is what we do.
On the other side, from user perspective, it rather is the implementationType (type is already used). Available types besides script are class, expression and delegateExpression.

So my question to you is, should we stick to name as I initially proposed because it works the same as already known for property bindings or should we be more specific to this use-case?

I am fine with both approaches. I would appreciate your opinion on this, before I finalize my contribution.

Kind regards
Alexander Skrock

[barmac]

Hi,

Thanks for coming back. I looked into this more deeply, and indeed implementationType sounds like a more reasonable choice. I'd suggest to have the following rules in the JSON schema:

• If implementationType is set on the binding, it has to have one of the values: [ 'script', 'class', 'expression', 'delegateExpression' ].
• If implementationType=script is set, scriptFormat is required.

So let's keep the backwards compatibility, but also enforce correct values in the future templates.

[AlexanderSkrock]

Now, everything should be ready for review, @barmac :

• Handling of the new attribute when applying element templates
  => This pull request
• Documentation update to reflect the new behaviour
  =>feat(element-templates): added "implementationType" property for execution listeners camunda/camunda-docs#2667
• JSON schema update to reflect new structure while preserving legacy templates
  => feat(element-templates) support for execution listeners other than scripts camunda/element-templates-json-schema#113

[barmac]

Thanks for the heads-up. I will look into these items today.

[barmac]

We will probably need to release a new version of bpmn-io/element-templates-validator for this.

[AlexanderSkrock]

What is the matter with the current version? Maybe, I could do necessary changes.

[barmac]

It's OK. The validator depends on the JSON schema, so I need to update the JSON schema there in order to update it. I am in the process of merging your changes ^^. Thank you so much for your contributions

[barmac]

Validator update for reference: bpmn-io/element-templates-validator#24

[barmac]

So once that PR is merged and validator is released, I will incorporate the update into this PR and merge it.

[AlexanderSkrock]

Thank you a lot for the effort!

[barmac]

OK this is now merged and I will publish it soon. Thank you @AlexanderSkrock for your amazing contribution!

[nikku]

Thanks indeed for this contribution. Well done 👏