Implement API methods for admin object metadata #708
Conversation
+ integration tests
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #708 +/- ##
=============================================
+ Coverage 87.54% 87.66% +0.12%
- Complexity 5263 5328 +65
=============================================
Files 227 228 +1
Lines 17513 17646 +133
Branches 2569 2573 +4
=============================================
+ Hits 15331 15469 +138
+ Misses 1719 1714 -5
Partials 463 463 |
| @@ -407,14 +443,14 @@ public static List<Tuple7<String, String, String, Long, String, String, Long>> w | |||
| * speed up the updates, but the drawback is that if the external update fails for any object, | |||
| * all the objects that required updates for that system will be marked as having a failed | |||
| * update. Has no effect if the permissions handler is not present. | |||
| * @param logObjects if true, log the object ref and type. | |||
| * @param objectInfoAsClass return the object information as a Class rather than a Tuple. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The answer will probably reveal itself further down the PR, but is this a new (and very sensible) feature? Is log_objects being silently disposed of, like the bodies of so many of your previous victims?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It turned out that every method that called this method set logObjects to true, so there was no need for the argument. The class vs tuple thing should be clear when you read the spec changes (you might want to do that first in fact)
| @@ -1043,7 +1042,7 @@ public void saveAndGetObjects() throws Exception { | |||
| loi.add(new ObjectIdentity().withWsid(wsid).withName("auto2").withVer(1L)); | |||
| loi.add(new ObjectIdentity().withWsid(wsid).withObjid(2L).withVer(1L)); | |||
| checkSavedObjects(loi, 2, "auto2", SAFE_TYPE, 1, USER1, | |||
| wsid, "saveget", "36c4f68f2c98971b9736839232eb08f4", 23, meta, data); | |||
| wsid, "saveget", "36c4f68f2c98971b9736839232eb08f4", 23, meta, mtmeta, data); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ZOMG!! How did you know that "36c4f68f2c98971b9736839232eb08f4" is my favourite string?!?!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| .withName("two") | ||
| .withVer(1L) | ||
| ) | ||
| .withNew(ImmutableMap.of("e", "f", "h", "pointed stick")), |
| /* Information about an object as a struct rather than a tuple. | ||
| This allows adding fields in a backward compatible way in the future. | ||
| Includes more fields than object_info. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Halle-£ƒƒ1%9-lujah!!!
plus integration tests