[#8367] improvement(core): Remove duplicate setOwner call in TestOwnerMetaService.testDeleteMetadataObject#8378
Merged
jerryshao merged 1 commit intoapache:mainfrom Sep 3, 2025
Merged
Conversation
Member
|
Are you sure you committed all changes? |
keepConcentration
force-pushed
the
8367
branch
from
2b67dde to
17826c3
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
All tests pass on my side. Could you let me know if anything is missing? |
Member
|
Ah yes my mistake sorry, that looks good, let me run the CI. |
…stOwnerMetaService.testDeleteMetadataObject
keepConcentration
force-pushed
the
8367
branch
from
17826c3 to
9526f9b
Compare
jerryshao
approved these changes
Sep 3, 2025
diqiu50
pushed a commit
to diqiu50/gravitino
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 15, 2025
…stOwnerMetaService.testDeleteMetadataObject (apache#8378) ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Removed the redundant invocation of `OwnerMetaService.setOwner(...)` in `TestOwnerMetaService.testDeleteMetadataObject`. ### Why are the changes needed? The test invoked `setOwner(...)` twice with the same parameters, causing duplicate rows and an integrity constraint error. Fix: apache#8367 Related: apache#7110, apache#8293 ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No user-facing changes. ### How was this patch tested? Executed existing unit tests
bharos
pushed a commit
to bharos/gravitino
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 3, 2025
…stOwnerMetaService.testDeleteMetadataObject (apache#8378) ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Removed the redundant invocation of `OwnerMetaService.setOwner(...)` in `TestOwnerMetaService.testDeleteMetadataObject`. ### Why are the changes needed? The test invoked `setOwner(...)` twice with the same parameters, causing duplicate rows and an integrity constraint error. Fix: apache#8367 Related: apache#7110, apache#8293 ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No user-facing changes. ### How was this patch tested? Executed existing unit tests
bharos
pushed a commit
to bharos/gravitino
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 7, 2025
…stOwnerMetaService.testDeleteMetadataObject (apache#8378) ### What changes were proposed in this pull request? Removed the redundant invocation of `OwnerMetaService.setOwner(...)` in `TestOwnerMetaService.testDeleteMetadataObject`. ### Why are the changes needed? The test invoked `setOwner(...)` twice with the same parameters, causing duplicate rows and an integrity constraint error. Fix: apache#8367 Related: apache#7110, apache#8293 ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? No user-facing changes. ### How was this patch tested? Executed existing unit tests
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Removed the redundant invocation of
OwnerMetaService.setOwner(...)inTestOwnerMetaService.testDeleteMetadataObject.Why are the changes needed?
The test invoked
setOwner(...)twice with the same parameters, causing duplicate rows and an integrity constraint error.Fix: #8367
Related: #7110, #8293
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No user-facing changes.
How was this patch tested?
Executed existing unit tests