Skip to content

[fix-#11825]fix problem about transaction (method of batchDeleteProcessDefinitionByCodes and batchDeleteProcessInstanceByIds)#11889

Closed
fuchanghai wants to merge 0 commit intoapache:devfrom
fuchanghai:fix-#11825
Closed

[fix-#11825]fix problem about transaction (method of batchDeleteProcessDefinitionByCodes and batchDeleteProcessInstanceByIds)#11889
fuchanghai wants to merge 0 commit intoapache:devfrom
fuchanghai:fix-#11825

Conversation

@fuchanghai
Copy link
Member

@fuchanghai fuchanghai commented Sep 10, 2022

Purpose of the pull request

fix problem about transaction (method of batchDeleteProcessDefinitionByCodes and batchDeleteProcessInstanceByIds)

Brief change log

ATT

Verify this pull request

This pull request is code cleanup without any test coverage.

this close #11825

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Sep 10, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #11889 (e0b8445) into dev (3664d85) will decrease coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 50.00%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##                dev   #11889      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     38.55%   38.53%   -0.03%     
+ Complexity     4037     4032       -5     
============================================
  Files           993      993              
  Lines         36698    36697       -1     
  Branches       4273     4275       +2     
============================================
- Hits          14149    14140       -9     
- Misses        20922    20930       +8     
  Partials       1627     1627              
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
...er/api/controller/ProcessDefinitionController.java 49.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...r/api/service/impl/ProcessInstanceServiceImpl.java 61.01% <ø> (+0.15%) ⬆️
...uler/api/controller/ProcessInstanceController.java 68.08% <100.00%> (-2.13%) ⬇️
...er/master/dispatch/host/assign/RandomSelector.java 77.77% <0.00%> (-5.56%) ⬇️
...erver/master/processor/queue/TaskEventService.java 75.00% <0.00%> (-5.36%) ⬇️
...olphinscheduler/api/controller/BaseController.java 49.29% <0.00%> (-4.23%) ⬇️
...r/plugin/task/sqoop/parameter/SqoopParameters.java 55.12% <0.00%> (-1.29%) ⬇️

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

@fuchanghai fuchanghai closed this Sep 10, 2022
@fuchanghai fuchanghai reopened this Sep 10, 2022
@fuchanghai fuchanghai closed this Sep 10, 2022
@fuchanghai fuchanghai reopened this Sep 10, 2022
@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

50.0% 50.0% Coverage
0.0% 0.0% Duplication

@SbloodyS SbloodyS added the bug Something isn't working label Sep 11, 2022
@SbloodyS SbloodyS added this to the 3.1.0 milestone Sep 11, 2022
@davidzollo
Copy link
Contributor

This PR doesn't seem to be related to Transaction

@fuchanghai
Copy link
Member Author

This PR doesn't seem to be related to Transaction

image

According to the previous code logic, it will cause partial success and partial failure

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

bug Something isn't working

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[Bug] [api] problem with Transactional

6 participants