Skip to content

Conversation

llorllale
Copy link
Contributor

This PR:

@0crat
Copy link
Collaborator

0crat commented May 15, 2018

Job #110 is now in scope, role is REV

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented May 15, 2018

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 193

  • 19 of 28 (67.86%) changed or added relevant lines in 2 files are covered.
  • 7 unchanged lines in 3 files lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage decreased (-1.09%) to 83.791%

Changes Missing Coverage Covered Lines Changed/Added Lines %
src/main/java/com/amihaiemil/docker/AuthHttpClient.java 8 17 47.06%
Files with Coverage Reduction New Missed Lines %
src/main/java/com/amihaiemil/docker/RtImages.java 1 97.67%
src/main/java/com/amihaiemil/docker/RtDocker.java 2 82.35%
src/main/java/com/amihaiemil/docker/RemoteDocker.java 4 50.0%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 173: -1.09%
Covered Lines: 305
Relevant Lines: 364

💛 - Coveralls

@llorllale
Copy link
Contributor Author

@amihaiemil FYI, coverage drops due to all those unused HttpClient operations in AuthHttpClient

@0crat
Copy link
Collaborator

0crat commented May 15, 2018

@amihaiemil/z everybody who has role REV are banned at #110; I won't be able to assign anyone automatically; consider assigning someone manually (as in §19), or invite more people (as in §51), or remove the job from the scope (as in §14)

@amihaiemil amihaiemil self-assigned this May 16, 2018
@0crat
Copy link
Collaborator

0crat commented May 16, 2018

This pull request #110 is assigned to @amihaiemil/z, here is why; the budget is 15 minutes, see §4; please, read §27 and when you decide to accept the changes, inform @amihaiemil/z (the architect) right in this ticket; if you decide that this PR should not be accepted ever, also inform the architect; this blog post will help you understand what is expected from a code reviewer

@0crat
Copy link
Collaborator

0crat commented May 16, 2018

Manual assignment of issues is discouraged, see §19: -5 point(s) just awarded to @amihaiemil/z

Copy link
Owner

@amihaiemil amihaiemil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@llorllale Really nice, I like it. Just a few questions. And let me know how much you worked (was it really 30min?) so I can boost the task :)

/**
* The base64-encoded JSON structure holding the credentials.
*/
private final Supplier<String> encoded;
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@llorllale Why did you make this a Supplier? As it is now, it doesn't make much sense. Maybe you wanted to add another ctor and let the clients specify a Supplier?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@amihaiemil just wanted to coalesce all those parameters into one single instance attribute

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@llorllale I see, ok

/**
* An http client that does nothing.
*/
private static class NoOpHttpClient implements HttpClient {
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@llorllale Do we need this class? Can't we just use Mockito.mock(HttpClient.class)?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@amihaiemil we can use Mockito, yes, although I don't like it because the mocking introduces too much noise in tests. Do you want mockito?

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@llorllale Well, yes, if the mock is not supposed to do anything, I would rather use Mockito. I understand that mocks can get really complex, but it's not the case here.

* @version $Id$
* @see <a href="https://docs.docker.com/engine/api/v1.35/#section/Authentication">Authentication</a>
* @since 0.0.1
* @todo #99:30min Implement a new auth named 'Token' that will hold the user's
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@llorllale Why do we need the Token implementation and how would it be used?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@llorllale llorllale May 16, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@amihaiemil the token would be for the identity token alternative described here

@llorllale
Copy link
Contributor Author

@amihaiemil unfortunately I lost track of time because I kept getting interrupted

@amihaiemil
Copy link
Owner

@llorllale I see. Just use mockito for that NoOp client and we're good here. Do you think 90min are ok? You don't have even a rough idea how much did this take?

@llorllale
Copy link
Contributor Author

@amihaiemil definitely not 90min. Let's agree on 45min.

@0crat
Copy link
Collaborator

0crat commented May 21, 2018

@amihaiemil/z this job was assigned to you 5days ago. It will be taken away from you soon, unless you close it, see §8. Read this and this, please.

@amihaiemil
Copy link
Owner

@llorllale Can you use mockito instead of that NoOp client? That's my only request here, it looks ok otherwise :)

…ator to

inject authentication header

As per PR review:
* AuthHttpClientTestCase: now mocking HttpClient by using Mockito
@llorllale
Copy link
Contributor Author

@amihaiemil please check now

@amihaiemil
Copy link
Owner

@llorllale looks ok, thanks :)

@amihaiemil
Copy link
Owner

@rultor merge it

@rultor
Copy link
Collaborator

rultor commented May 23, 2018

@rultor merge it

@amihaiemil OK, I'll try to merge now. You can check the progress of the merge here

@rultor rultor merged commit 9f7d884 into amihaiemil:master May 23, 2018
@amihaiemil
Copy link
Owner

@0crat extra 90min @llorllale

@rultor
Copy link
Collaborator

rultor commented May 23, 2018

@rultor merge it

@amihaiemil Done! FYI, the full log is here (took me 3min)

@0crat
Copy link
Collaborator

0crat commented May 23, 2018

@0crat extra 90min @llorllale (here)

@amihaiemil The user @llorllale/z works for free in this project, see §49

@amihaiemil
Copy link
Owner

@llorllale Can you open an Issue in /farm for this? I think 0crat should pay the reputation even if the rate is 0.

@0crat
Copy link
Collaborator

0crat commented May 23, 2018

Order was finished: +15 point(s) just awarded to @amihaiemil/z

@0crat
Copy link
Collaborator

0crat commented May 23, 2018

The job #110 is now out of scope

@llorllale llorllale deleted the 99 branch May 23, 2018 19:33
@llorllale
Copy link
Contributor Author

@amihaiemil according to this, the command is pay.

Or maybe you should try boost?

@amihaiemil
Copy link
Owner

@llorllale I think boost is used for tasks which are assigned and in scope. This one is out of scope already.

@amihaiemil
Copy link
Owner

@0crat pay 90min @llorllale

@0crat
Copy link
Collaborator

0crat commented May 23, 2018

@0crat pay 90min @llorllale (here)

@amihaiemil The user @llorllale/z works for free in this project, see §49

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.

5 participants