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

JS-390 Refactor HTTP layer in BridgeServerImpl #4899

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 13, 2024
Merged

JS-390 Refactor HTTP layer in BridgeServerImpl #4899

merged 4 commits into from
Nov 13, 2024

Conversation

saberduck
Copy link
Contributor

@saberduck saberduck commented Nov 11, 2024

JS-390

I cleaned-up the signatures of Bridge which declared throws IOException although this could never happen because IOException is catched in BridgeServerImpl#request

See also change in https://github.com/SonarSource/sonar-armor/pull/394

Copy link

sonarqube-next bot commented Nov 12, 2024

Quality Gate failed Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
85.4% Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 90%)

See analysis details on SonarQube

@saberduck saberduck requested a review from vdiez November 12, 2024 13:13
@saberduck saberduck marked this pull request as ready for review November 12, 2024 14:00
@saberduck saberduck requested a review from zglicz November 12, 2024 15:17
Copy link
Contributor

@zglicz zglicz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

SQ says code coverage is low. Can you somehow test a bit more?

} catch (NoSuchFieldException | IllegalAccessException | ClassNotFoundException | NoSuchMethodException | InvocationTargetException e) {
LOG.info("Failed to set logger level to INFO for " + loggerName, e);
}
this.http = http;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

oh nice, I see you can now remove the hackiness that was added before

@saberduck
Copy link
Contributor Author

SQ says code coverage is low. Can you somehow test a bit more?

low coverage is due to InterruptedException handling, doesn't really make sense to cover it

@saberduck saberduck merged commit 7ff98bd into master Nov 13, 2024
18 of 20 checks passed
@saberduck saberduck deleted the JS390 branch November 13, 2024 11:54
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