Release/0.22.3 #204
Open
Release/0.22.3 #204
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 8435310588Details
💛 - Coveralls |
istreeter
reviewed
Mar 26, 2024
| @@ -277,7 +279,8 @@ class CasterSpec extends org.specs2.Specification { def is = s2""" | |||
| json"""{"XYZ": 42, "xyz": "invalid"}""" -> StructValue(List(NamedValue("xyz", IntValue(42)))), | |||
| json"""{"xyz": null, "XYZ": "invalid"}""" -> StructValue(List(NamedValue("xyz", NullValue))), | |||
| json"""{"XYZ": null, "xyz": "invalid"}""" -> StructValue(List(NamedValue("xyz", NullValue))), | |||
| json"""{"XYZ": "invalid"}""" -> StructValue(List(NamedValue("xyz", NullValue))), | |||
| json"""{"XYZ": "invalid"}""" -> StructValue(List(NamedValue("xyz", NullValue))), //Should be error? | |||
| json"""{"xyz": "invalid", "XYZ": "invalid"}""" -> StructValue(List(NamedValue("xyz", NullValue))), // This one is null now! Should be error? | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should be error?
I think yes.
| @@ -277,7 +279,8 @@ class CasterSpec extends org.specs2.Specification { def is = s2""" | |||
| json"""{"XYZ": 42, "xyz": "invalid"}""" -> StructValue(List(NamedValue("xyz", IntValue(42)))), | |||
| json"""{"xyz": null, "XYZ": "invalid"}""" -> StructValue(List(NamedValue("xyz", NullValue))), | |||
| json"""{"XYZ": null, "xyz": "invalid"}""" -> StructValue(List(NamedValue("xyz", NullValue))), | |||
| json"""{"XYZ": "invalid"}""" -> StructValue(List(NamedValue("xyz", NullValue))), | |||
| json"""{"XYZ": "invalid"}""" -> StructValue(List(NamedValue("xyz", NullValue))), //Should be error? | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should be error?
If line 280 and 281 are not errors, then I think it's ok for this one to also be not an error.
But I'm not strongly opinionated on this one, especially as it's a really weird edge case scenario, which we may never see in production. The important thing is: the loader doesn't break. And we've achieved that.
|
By the way, you might be wondering... why would a loader receive invalid data anyway, if it has already been validated by Enrich. There are two scenarios that I know of:
If you understand the second scenario, it might help guide you on what is the correct end behaviour. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.