Chore 2733 design level final refactor #2738
Conversation
|
Hi @ChristianMurphy , |
| this.authorizationService.canPrincipalBrowse( | ||
| this.authorizationPrincipal, portletDefinition); | ||
| break; | ||
| case CONFIGURE: | ||
| given( | ||
| this.authorizationService.canPrincipalConfigure( | ||
| this.authorizationPrincipal, portletDefinitionStringId)) | ||
| .willReturn(true); | ||
| this.authorizationService.canPrincipalConfigure( | ||
| this.authorizationPrincipal, portletDefinitionStringId); | ||
| break; | ||
| case MANAGE: | ||
| given( | ||
| this.authorizationService.canPrincipalManage( | ||
| this.authorizationPrincipal, portletDefinitionStringId)) | ||
| .willReturn(true); | ||
| this.authorizationService.canPrincipalManage( | ||
| this.authorizationPrincipal, portletDefinitionStringId); | ||
| break; | ||
| case SUBSCRIBE: | ||
| given( | ||
| this.authorizationService.canPrincipalSubscribe( | ||
| this.authorizationPrincipal, portletDefinitionStringId)) | ||
| .willReturn(true); | ||
| this.authorizationService.canPrincipalSubscribe( | ||
| this.authorizationPrincipal, portletDefinitionStringId); | ||
| break; | ||
| case RENDER: | ||
| given( | ||
| this.authorizationService.canPrincipalRender( | ||
| this.authorizationPrincipal, portletDefinitionStringId)) | ||
| .willReturn(true); | ||
| this.authorizationService.canPrincipalRender( | ||
| this.authorizationPrincipal, portletDefinitionStringId); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't these tests assert something?
Why has the testing part of the test been removed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was previously handled in a different way as this same switch case with method calls was used in the class. Now since that is now handled and replaced with a single polymorphic call, I did not need this any more in my test. Hence, I modified the existing flow to test whether the my polymorphism methods are being invoked properly.
| @Override | ||
| public int hashCode() { | ||
| int h = hash; | ||
| if (h == 0) { | ||
| h = internalHashCode(); | ||
| hash = h; | ||
| } | ||
| return h; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| private int internalHashCode() { | ||
| final int prime = 31; | ||
| int result = 1; | ||
| result = | ||
| prime * result | ||
| + ((this.getPortletWindowId() == null) | ||
| ? 0 | ||
| : this.getPortletWindowId().hashCode()); | ||
| result = | ||
| prime * result | ||
| + ((this.getEventType() == null) ? 0 : this.getEventType().hashCode()); | ||
| return result; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What has this been replaced by?
Is this inherited? Is there a lombok annotations I'm not able to see in the diff? Something else?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All such implementations have been pulled up in the parent class to remove code duplicates.
Since all such methods were common to the 4/5 inheritors, I have applied pulled up refactor of the method and variable.
I can explore how I can replace the single implementation of this method ( now in the parent class) through Lombok in the next iteration.
| @Override | ||
| public int hashCode() { | ||
| int h = hash; | ||
| if (h == 0) { | ||
| h = internalHashCode(); | ||
| hash = h; | ||
| } | ||
| return h; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| private int internalHashCode() { | ||
| final int prime = 31; | ||
| int result = 1; | ||
| result = | ||
| prime * result | ||
| + ((this.getPortletWindowId() == null) | ||
| ? 0 | ||
| : this.getPortletWindowId().hashCode()); | ||
| result = | ||
| prime * result | ||
| + ((this.getEventType() == null) ? 0 : this.getEventType().hashCode()); | ||
| return result; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
same here, where has this implementation been moved to?
| public int hashCode() { | ||
| int h = hash; | ||
| if (h == 0) { | ||
| h = internalHashCode(); | ||
| hash = h; | ||
| } | ||
| return h; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could this be handled through Lombok?
| @Override | ||
| public String toString() { | ||
| return this.getClass().getSimpleName() | ||
| + " [" | ||
| + "portletWindowId=" | ||
| + this.getPortletWindowId() | ||
| + "]"; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
could this be handled through Lombok?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like there are two refactors going on in this PR. One is pulling up hashCode() into a parent class. That seems reasonable given that these hashCode() methods seem to be special, along with the toString() method. The other refactor is to replace a switch statement with handlers; however, the switch statement just moves into another class with more code to create the classes. I don't see the benefit here.
I request that this be converted into two separate PRs -- one for the hashCode and toString methods and another for the switch changes. The former is likely to be merged, but the switch changes are borderline.
Checklist
Description of change