The string being shown for the version of IGB that the app supports is taken directly from the repository.xml OBR file packaged with the jar.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of variety in terms of what that string from the repository.xml looks like, and we can't think of a bullet-proof way to parse it and identify the IGB version allowed.
Apps can specify that they will work with only one version of IGB, with a range of versions, or with a particular version of IGB and everything higher than that.
Rather than try to parse out all of that, we are simply showing what the developer configured in the jar file, hoping that the user will understand.
This is not the best solution, of course. Until we work out what to do, we are going to continue using this syntax.
The behavior you are seeing is correct in the sense that it is intentional, but it is definitely a usability bug.
Also, there is a kind of work-around. Developers can edit this field to make a more user-friendly view. We are implementing this in https://jira.transvar.org/browse/IGBF-2148.
I am moving this to the backlog for now as we will address this in a future to-be-determined sprint. Also, re-naming to capture the task.
Pawan Bole
Task
Major
IGBF-2138 Improve box-release-info on apps page
The string being shown for the version of IGB that the app supports is taken directly from the repository.xml OBR file packaged with the jar.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of variety in terms of what that string from the repository.xml looks like, and we can't think of a bullet-proof way to parse it and identify the IGB version allowed.
Apps can specify that they will work with only one version of IGB, with a range of versions, or with a particular version of IGB and everything higher than that.
Rather than try to parse out all of that, we are simply showing what the developer configured in the jar file, hoping that the user will understand.
This is not the best solution, of course. Until we work out what to do, we are going to continue using this syntax.
The behavior you are seeing is correct in the sense that it is intentional, but it is definitely a usability bug.
Also, there is a kind of work-around. Developers can edit this field to make a more user-friendly view. We are implementing this in https://jira.transvar.org/browse/IGBF-2148.
I am moving this to the backlog for now as we will address this in a future to-be-determined sprint. Also, re-naming to capture the task.
Pawan Bole