这是indexloc提供的服务,不要输入任何密码
Skip to content

Conversation

@haqer1
Copy link
Contributor

@haqer1 haqer1 commented Mar 28, 2025

… during interactions with server (JavaHttpClientExceptionHandlingUnitTest).

  • including:
    • added file appender config for logback for unit-testing assertions & tweaked levels (logback.xml)
    • added suite (for sequencing) (JavaHttpClientTestSuite.java)
    • updated source, dependencies & testing config (pom.xml)

haqer1 and others added 5 commits March 28, 2025 19:17
…ons during interactions with server (JavaHttpClientExceptionHandlingUnitTest).

 * including:
   - added file appender config for logback for unit-testing assertions & tweak levels (logback.xml)
   - added suite (for sequencing) (JavaHttpClientTestSuite.java)
   - updated source, dependencies & testing config (pom.xml)
… last commit on this branch

 * thus resolving the following error:
   - [ERROR] /var/lib/jenkins/workspace/tutorials-build-pr/core-java-modules/core-java-httpclient/src/main/java/com/baeldung/rest/RestApiServer.java:[20,24] switch rules are not supported in -source 11
  (use -source 14 or higher to enable switch rules)
@haqer1 haqer1 force-pushed the java-http-client-exception-handling-unit-tests branch from 15f15dc to ac6bd5c Compare March 28, 2025 22:13
haqer1 added 5 commits March 28, 2025 23:15
 * executing the others directly
   - as sequencing is only needed for tests affecting WireMock logging
 * to ensure that concurrent WireMock logging doesn't take place
   - even if surefire-based TestSuite config is ignored
 * for exception handling testing
   - using file size threshold instead of fixed delay or TestSuite
@lor6
Copy link
Collaborator

lor6 commented Apr 28, 2025

Hi @haqer1 Is this related to a Jira or other issue?

Thanks.

@haqer1
Copy link
Contributor Author

haqer1 commented May 5, 2025

Hi @lor6,

There hadn't been an issue opened, but just in case i've just added one: #18528

Thanks.

@lor6
Copy link
Collaborator

lor6 commented May 6, 2025

Thanks @haqer1

This seems to showcase new content, rather than a problem in the existing code. Our process for adding new code is more extensive, because we would have to continue maintaining it.

I will close the PR and the new GitHub issue.

Thanks.

@lor6 lor6 closed this May 6, 2025
@haqer1
Copy link
Contributor Author

haqer1 commented May 7, 2025

Yes, it's not about bug in existing code.

Strange: it's useful info & code that many people don't know & would benefit from knowing, with automated tests, including interesting stuff for assertions. Why not merge this? What else would be needed according to your "more extensive process"?

Thanks.

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