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

[WIP] clean up startup logging around catalog #856

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ahgittin
Copy link
Contributor

@ahgittin ahgittin commented Oct 5, 2017

just looking at logs and tidying up stuff that is wrong or misleading

have done one so far but i think there are others. best hold off reviewing until all done.

@@ -103,8 +103,8 @@ private TemporaryInternalScanResult scanForCatalogInternal(Bundle bundle, boolea
this.managementContext.getCatalog().addTypesFromBundleBom(bomText, mb, force, result.mapOfNewToReplaced);
if (validate) {
Set<RegisteredType> matches = MutableSet.copyOf(this.managementContext.getTypeRegistry().getMatching(RegisteredTypePredicates.containingBundle(mb.getVersionedName())));
if (!(matches.containsAll(result.mapOfNewToReplaced.keySet()) && result.mapOfNewToReplaced.keySet().containsAll(matches))) {
// sanity check
if (matches.size()!=result.mapOfNewToReplaced.size()) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm afraid this will be too loose: the 2 sets have the same size but we don't know if the items are "the same", i.e. same symbolicName and version.

Could we have a middle ground here? Something like looping over each items in result.mapOfNewToReplaced, checking if matches contains one with the same symbolicName and version. Those fields should be resolved and would provide sufficient equality in this case. WDYT?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@ahgittin can you explain more the purpose/context of this check, and why you only want to log.warn if the sizes are different?

I recall seeing such warnings in the log when I suspect we shouldn't have, so think you're right to guard against it better.

For @tbouron's suggestion of checking the symbolicName:version, that makes sense - or does this get called a lot or with really big things so performance matters?

*/
@Deprecated
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does not seem in the scope of this PR. Also not sure why deprecating it?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks like code is not called, and it's in an internal package. Therefore I'm ahppy with it being deprecated (or even deleted immediately). Same for below.

* @param item Catalog item to remove
* @deprecated since 0.13.0 remove bundles
*/
@Deprecated
Copy link
Member

@tbouron tbouron Oct 6, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does not seem in the scope of this PR. Also not sure why deprecating it?

*
* @param item Catalog items to remove
* @param item Catalog item to remove
* @deprecated since 0.13.0 remove bundles
Copy link
Member

@tbouron tbouron Oct 13, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should be updated to 1.0.0

* Remove the given item from the catalog.
*
* @param item Catalog item to remove
* @deprecated since 0.13.0 remove bundles
Copy link
Member

@tbouron tbouron Oct 13, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should be updated to 1.0.0

@tbouron
Copy link
Member

tbouron commented Nov 22, 2017

@ahgittin Do you think you can look at the comments above?

@tbouron
Copy link
Member

tbouron commented Aug 30, 2018

@ahgittin Any news on this PR?

@nakomis
Copy link
Contributor

nakomis commented Nov 26, 2019

@ahgittin Can you take a look at this please to see if it is still relevant, and address the comments above if appropriate

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.

4 participants