-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.4k
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
add connectionsHandler #53
Conversation
import java.io.IOException; | ||
import java.util.UUID; | ||
|
||
public class SourceImplementationHelpers { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this file going to go away with the mocks?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the writeConfig
part is. still using it the file to generate the struct which gets used in two different test classes.
return getConnectionInternal(connectionIdRequestBody.getConnectionId()); | ||
} | ||
|
||
private StandardSync.Status toPersistenceStatus(ConnectionStatus apiStatus) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why do we have this conversion here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
because the enums generated separately by open api 3 and json2pojo. so, even though they have the same values, the mapping has to be done explicitly to map back and forth between persistence and API structs. miss duck typing yet? 😉
e0ab902
to
fce475b
Compare
5466817
to
e176809
Compare
Fork Sync: Update from parent repository
What
wrapperObject.isA()
. instead it either just doesn't generate a usable object or generates an object with all of the fields. this is worth looking into more carefully, but for now, we just assume schedule is manual if it is nullNote: I need to propagate the change in how to handle unit tests down to this PR. I will use mocks like was suggested in an earlier PR and will integrate that before I merge. I don't think you need to block reviewing on that.