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

Minor clean up #1

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

PiggyPiglet
Copy link

  • Implements jetbrains annotations instead of manual null checks. These will throw errors if a null value is provided, while being a far cleaner approach to the issue.
  • Cleaned up badly formatted javadocs.
  • Removed redundant method modifiers (final methods in a final class)
  • Applied the final keyword where appropraite
  • Removed redundant constructor

Keep in mind, with the annotations dependency, due to limitations of maven, the scope must be set to compile for the tests to pass. When shipping the library however, the annotations dependency should have the provided scope. I'd recommend switching to gradle to circumvent this issue.

PiggyPiglet and others added 3 commits July 18, 2020 00:32
Remove redundant method modifiers
Use final where appropriate
Fix bad javadocs
@PiggyPiglet PiggyPiglet mentioned this pull request Jul 17, 2020
@lewysDavies lewysDavies self-assigned this Jul 19, 2020
@lewysDavies lewysDavies added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation enhancement New feature or request labels Jul 19, 2020
@lewysDavies
Copy link
Owner

Awesome Work! I will review this in a couple days when I am not so sick

@lewysDavies
Copy link
Owner

Why can't we always use scope provided? Tests still pass fine?

@PiggyPiglet
Copy link
Author

Why can't we always use scope provided? Tests still pass fine?

I wasn't able to run the tests when using the provided scope.

@portlek
Copy link

portlek commented Jul 22, 2020

There is no need to test actually, because of the unit test :D build script should test all things. As a developer, we don't need to make real tests.

@PiggyPiglet
Copy link
Author

There is no need to test actually, because of the unit test :D build script should test all things. As a developer, we don't need to make real tests.

I'm not sure you understand what we're talking about.

@lewysDavies
Copy link
Owner

lewysDavies commented Jul 23, 2020

Why can't we always use scope provided? Tests still pass fine?

I wasn't able to run the tests when using the provided scope.

Hmm strange, as I was able to (even with a full maven update). Did you build the project before running the tests? Documentation says it's used during the build & tests.

I am still debating if it's worth adding another dependency as that would end the simple copy & paste instalation. It's only a simple utility and I agree jetbrains annotations are far sexier and I use them in all my projects, however I wanted this to be pure Java 8.

@PiggyPiglet
Copy link
Author

Why can't we always use scope provided? Tests still pass fine?

I wasn't able to run the tests when using the provided scope.

Hmm strange, as I was able to (even with a full maven update). Did you build the project before running the tests? Documentation says it's used during the build & tests.

I am still debating if it's worth adding another dependency as that would end the simple copy & paste instalation. It's only a simple utility and I agree jetbrains annotations are far sexier and I use them in all my projects, however I wanted this to be pure Java 8.

There's nothing impure about annotations. Anyway, while I appreciate your assistance in getting the tests working on my side, to do so is unnecessary, as it doesn't affect the validity of this pull request, considering they work fine on your end.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants