Convert ObjectInformation to a builder #689
Conversation
Pain now = makes it easier to add the admin metadata and any other future new fields
| @@ -239,54 +188,10 @@ private Reference getLast(final List<Reference> refpath) { | |||
| return refpath.get(refpath.size() - 1); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| @Override | |||
| public String toString() { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
toString() is too much of a pain to test given how easy it is to just add it in temporarily when you need it.
| @@ -18,8 +18,6 @@ public class UncheckedUserMetadata { | |||
|
|
|||
| private Map<String, String> metadata; | |||
|
|
|||
| //TODO CODE empty constructor -> empty metadata | |||
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #689 +/- ##
=============================================
+ Coverage 87.29% 87.41% +0.12%
+ Complexity 5221 5189 -32
=============================================
Files 223 223
Lines 17367 17312 -55
Branches 2578 2545 -33
=============================================
- Hits 15161 15134 -27
+ Misses 1738 1711 -27
+ Partials 468 467 -1 |
|
Not sure why the one test is failing at the set up stage consistently while the other isn't... will look into it tomorrow |
|
The issue with the set-up is due to the version of minio not being available from the supplied link -- the issue is intermittent (maybe a load balancer on the minio website and different dir structures on the different servers behind it?) and I found the quickest and easiest way to fix it was just to add the relevant release of minio to the workspace repo. go to https://dl.minio.io/server/minio/release/linux-amd64/archive/ |
| chksum == null || | ||
| size < 1) { | ||
| throw new IllegalArgumentException("One or more of the required arguments are " | ||
| + "not set. Please check the documentation for the builder."); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you want to be extra accurate in your error messaging...
"One or more of the required arguments are invalid or not set."
(objectId / size / version are set, they just don't pass the tests)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure I understand - the with methods prevent setting invalids values. If a value has been set at all it must be valid.
-1 just signifies the value has never been set, maybe that's the confusion?
|
Looks like the tests finally passed |
Pain now = makes it easier to add the admin metadata and any other future new fields