adding new method signature plus test #1570
Conversation
salaboy
force-pushed
the
1569-save-metadata
branch
from
1da2f75 to
62f1fda
Compare
salaboy
force-pushed
the
1569-save-metadata
branch
2 times, most recently
from
46da31f to
f7b2be6
Compare
Signed-off-by: salaboy <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: salaboy <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: salaboy <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: salaboy <[email protected]>
salaboy
force-pushed
the
1569-save-metadata
branch
from
9746e04 to
d6fe7d5
Compare
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1570 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 76.91% 78.51% +1.60%
- Complexity 1592 1916 +324
============================================
Files 145 215 +70
Lines 4843 5833 +990
Branches 562 650 +88
============================================
+ Hits 3725 4580 +855
- Misses 821 916 +95
- Partials 297 337 +40 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@salaboy nice job! I just think we should be careful not to change the incoming parameter. For example if someone would send an unmodifiable map as parameter, it will result in a runtime exception.
| */ | ||
| @Override | ||
| public Mono<Void> saveState(String storeName, String key, String etag, Object value, Map<String, String> meta, | ||
| StateOptions options) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is dangerous to modify the incoming method parameter. I would rather make a copy and add the content type if value is not null.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (value != null) { | ||
| meta.put("contentType", stateSerializer.getContentType()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What if the key already exists? Is it ok to overwrite it?
Description
Add new method signature to support metadata map, I've added a test that validates that the custom metadata is added.
Issue reference
We strive to have all PR being opened based on an issue, where the problem or feature have been discussed prior to implementation.
Please reference the issue this PR will close: #1569
Checklist
Please make sure you've completed the relevant tasks for this PR, out of the following list: