Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[ISSUE #3887] The method of verifying no exception thrown is not appropriate #3889

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

pandaapo
Copy link
Member

@pandaapo pandaapo commented May 8, 2023

Fixes #3887.

Motivation

See "Enhancement Request" in issue.

Modifications

See "Describe the solution you'd like" in issue.

Documentation

  • Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (yes / no)
  • If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable / docs / JavaDocs / not documented)
  • If a feature is not applicable for documentation, explain why?
  • If a feature is not documented yet in this PR, please create a followup issue for adding the documentation

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 9, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #3889 (e532cc3) into master (0ce8d57) will decrease coverage by 0.31%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

❗ Current head e532cc3 differs from pull request most recent head 63953ba. Consider uploading reports for the commit 63953ba to get more accurate results

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #3889      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     14.24%   13.93%   -0.31%     
+ Complexity     1320     1292      -28     
============================================
  Files           579      570       -9     
  Lines         28967    28848     -119     
  Branches       2802     2811       +9     
============================================
- Hits           4125     4020     -105     
- Misses        24450    24455       +5     
+ Partials        392      373      -19     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
...n/loadbalance/WeightRandomLoadBalanceSelector.java 88.00% <100.00%> (+0.50%) ⬆️

... and 143 files with indirect coverage changes

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

Copy link
Contributor

It has been 60 days since the last activity on this pull request. I am reaching out here to gently remind you that the Apache EventMesh community values every pull request, and please feel free to get in touch with the reviewers at any time. They are available to assist you in advancing the progress of your pull request and offering the latest feedback.

If you encounter any challenges during development, seeking support within the community is encouraged. We sincerely appreciate your contributions to Apache EventMesh.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label Apr 22, 2024
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Apr 22, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 13.93%. Comparing base (0ce8d57) to head (e532cc3).
Report is 533 commits behind head on master.

Current head e532cc3 differs from pull request most recent head 63953ba

Please upload reports for the commit 63953ba to get more accurate results.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #3889      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     14.24%   13.93%   -0.31%     
+ Complexity     1320     1292      -28     
============================================
  Files           579      570       -9     
  Lines         28967    28848     -119     
  Branches       2802     2811       +9     
============================================
- Hits           4125     4020     -105     
- Misses        24450    24455       +5     
+ Partials        392      373      -19     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Member

@Pil0tXia Pil0tXia left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM. Please resolve conflicts.

Comment on lines +77 to +80

boolean isSameWeightGroup() {
return sameWeightGroup;
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

How about using a @Getter lombok annotation?

Well, this method doesn't take up a lot of space and can be left unchanged in this PR if you don't feel it's necessary.

@Pil0tXia Pil0tXia changed the title [ISSUE #3887]The method of verifying no exception thrown is not appropriate. [ISSUE #3887] The method of verifying no exception thrown is not appropriate. Apr 23, 2024
@Pil0tXia Pil0tXia changed the title [ISSUE #3887] The method of verifying no exception thrown is not appropriate. [ISSUE #3887] The method of verifying no exception thrown is not appropriate Apr 23, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the Stale label Apr 23, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

It has been 60 days since the last activity on this pull request. I am reaching out here to gently remind you that the Apache EventMesh community values every pull request, and please feel free to get in touch with the reviewers at any time. They are available to assist you in advancing the progress of your pull request and offering the latest feedback.

If you encounter any challenges during development, seeking support within the community is encouraged. We sincerely appreciate your contributions to Apache EventMesh.

@github-actions github-actions bot added Stale and removed Stale labels Jun 22, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[Enhancement] The method of verifying no exception thrown is not appropriate.
4 participants