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

Throw converter not found instead of generic IndexOutOfBound exception #5329

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

ar0d10n
Copy link

@ar0d10n ar0d10n commented Jun 25, 2024

Throw converter not found instead of generic IndexOutOfBound exception

Motivation and Context

#3845

Modifications

Added parameter validation and throwing appropriate exception instead of generic IndexOutOfBound for default attribute converter and enhanced document

Testing

Added unit tests

Screenshots (if appropriate)

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

Checklist

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING document
  • Local run of mvn install succeeds
  • My code follows the code style of this project
  • My change requires a change to the Javadoc documentation
  • I have updated the Javadoc documentation accordingly
  • I have added tests to cover my changes
  • All new and existing tests passed
  • I have added a changelog entry. Adding a new entry must be accomplished by running the scripts/new-change script and following the instructions. Commit the new file created by the script in .changes/next-release with your changes.
  • My change is to implement 1.11 parity feature and I have updated LaunchChangelog

License

  • I confirm that this pull request can be released under the Apache 2 license

StringConverterProvider.defaultProvider().converterFor(type.rawClassParameters().get(0)),
converterForClass(type.rawClassParameters().get(1), chainConverterProvider));
StringConverterProvider.defaultProvider().converterFor(params.get(0)),
converterForClass(params.get(1), chainConverterProvider));
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is it possible to end up in a state where the rawClassParameters only contains one element? Should we check that it has 2 entries?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think client code can do that, so I will add check for size

@@ -85,6 +87,14 @@ public void fromClass_constructsImmutableTableSchema() {
assertThat(tableSchema).isInstanceOf(ImmutableTableSchema.class);
}

@Test
public void fromClass_missingObjectConverter() {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: Should contain the effect, maybe fromClass_missingObjectConverter_throwsIllegalStateException

assertThatIllegalStateException().isThrownBy(
() -> TableSchema.fromClass(ObjectMapBean.class)
).withMessage("Converter not found for "
+ "EnhancedType(java.lang.Object)");
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

NitNit: Line break seems unnecessary, lines are pretty short?

@@ -304,6 +305,34 @@ void access_CustomType_without_AttributeConverterProvider() {
assertThat(docWithCustomProvider.get("customMapValue", EnhancedType.of(CustomClassForDocumentAPI.class))).isNotNull();
}

@Test
void error_When_listUsed() {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: The test case names in this class don't seem to follow a rule, but can we use something like
listUsed_missingObjectConverter_throwsIllegalStateException?

Copy link

@ar0d10n ar0d10n marked this pull request as ready for review June 28, 2024 10:57
@ar0d10n ar0d10n requested a review from a team as a code owner June 28, 2024 10:57
@ar0d10n
Copy link
Author

ar0d10n commented Sep 13, 2024

closed in favour of #5538

@ar0d10n ar0d10n closed this Sep 13, 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.

2 participants