286 Add product type sync by jortizsao · Pull Request #296 · commercetools/commercetools-sync-java

jortizsao · 2018-08-01T09:06:56Z

Summary

This PR adds the ProductTypeSync class which is responsible for creating the batches from the product type drafts, and sync them accordingly:

if it is a new product type draft, creates the product type in commercetools
if it is an existing product type, updates the product type with the data coming from the product type draft.

Description

ProductTypeSync
- Add process method
- Add process batch method
- Add update existing product type method
- Add create product type method
- Update product type service
- Add integration tests
- Add documentation

Todo

Tests
- Unit
- Integration

codecov-io · 2018-08-01T09:17:49Z

Codecov Report

Merging #296 into master will increase coverage by 0.18%.
The diff coverage is 95.62%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master     #296      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     96.29%   96.47%   +0.18%     
- Complexity     1066     1102      +36     
============================================
  Files           101      103       +2     
  Lines          2642     2722      +80     
  Branches        130      134       +4     
============================================
+ Hits           2544     2626      +82     
+ Misses           83       81       -2     
  Partials         15       15

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ	Complexity Δ
...ils/ProductTypeUpdateLocalizedEnumActionUtils.java	`100% <ø> (ø)`	`4 <0> (ø)`	⬇️
...ools/sync/producttypes/ProductTypeSyncOptions.java	`100% <ø> (ø)`	`1 <0> (ø)`	⬇️
...s/utils/ProductTypeUpdatePlainEnumActionUtils.java	`100% <100%> (ø)`	`4 <0> (ø)`	⬇️
.../sync/producttypes/utils/ProductTypeSyncUtils.java	`100% <100%> (ø)`	`1 <1> (?)`
...roducttypes/helpers/ProductTypeSyncStatistics.java	`100% <100%> (ø)`	`2 <2> (?)`
...oductTypeUpdateAttributeDefinitionActionUtils.java	`100% <100%> (ø)`	`21 <8> (+4)`	⬆️
...es/utils/AttributeDefinitionUpdateActionUtils.java	`100% <100%> (ø)`	`17 <7> (-3)`	⬇️
...roducttypes/utils/PlainEnumUpdateActionsUtils.java	`100% <100%> (ø)`	`3 <1> (ø)`	⬇️
...types/utils/ProductTypeUpdateEnumActionsUtils.java	`100% <100%> (+6.25%)`	`18 <0> (ø)`	⬇️
...ols/sync/services/impl/ProductTypeServiceImpl.java	`77.77% <80.64%> (+4.8%)`	`16 <11> (+4)`	⬆️
... and 4 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 1c181f9...3b5b517. Read the comment docs.

* Add process method * Add process batch method * Add update existing product type method * Add create product type method * Update product type service * Add integration tests

…ew attribute when the attributeDefinitions with the same name but of different types we shouldn't just throw an exception but rather we should remove the old attributeDefinition and create a new one with the new type.

heshamMassoud

I am still not done with the review 😉 but in general I see a lot of code not covered. Is this still coming?

Regardless, I will submit my review for now so I don't block you. Then I will submit another review.

heshamMassoud · 2018-08-10T11:42:44Z

 import java.util.function.Function;

-public final class ProductTypeSyncOptions extends BaseSyncOptions<ProductType, ProductTypeDraft> {
+public class ProductTypeSyncOptions extends BaseSyncOptions<ProductType, ProductTypeDraft> {


why did you remove the final?

honestly, I don't know... it's been a mistake

heshamMassoud · 2018-08-10T11:43:42Z

+
+import static java.lang.String.format;
+
+public class ProductTypeSyncStatistics extends BaseSyncStatistics {


no unit tests?

We should have private constructor for this class, since we only expect it to be instantiated through the builder. Also we should make it final. I know this is not the case for the other *Statistics classes, but maybe we should change that.

I created an integration test for that: https://github.com/commercetools/commercetools-sync-java/pull/296/files#diff-07965ad8d45b1a77e4bf0fc63ff109f8R393

We should have private constructor for this class, since we only expect it to be instantiated through the builder. Also we should make it final. I know this is not the case for the other *Statistics classes, but maybe we should change that.

Is there a builder for the *Statistics classes? or you mean that I have to develop one?

@jortizsao

I created an integration test for that

I would say:

We should cover as much of the code (as possible) with unit tests.

a unit test is sufficient for the statistics since the integration tests have an overhead of the setting up/tearing down requests. So they are quite costly in the sense that they increase the time of the build significantly, etc..

see: https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TestPyramid.html

Is there a builder for the *Statistics classes? or you mean that I have to develop one?

Oh, my bad. I thought there is already one :( disregard the comment then. Just consider using final..

I would say:

We should cover as much of the code (as possible) with unit tests.
a unit test is sufficient for the statistics since the integration tests have an overhead of the setting up/tearing down requests. So they are quite costly in the sense that they increase the time of the build significantly, etc..

Yes, I'm familiar with the test pyramid and I love unit tests (I usually develop using TDD when possible) and I prefer them over integration tests.

For the ProductTypeSync class and related classes and methods (basically the ones I've added in this PR and that don't create update actions), I found complex to add unit tests to these classes due to coupling/architecture, so I decided to follow the same existing approach (cover those test cases with integration tests ).

In this case is true that is possible to add a unit test for the getReportMessage method but in order to avoid a single test class for this unit test, I thought that the integration test was enough.

Anyways, I add the unit test :)

heshamMassoud · 2018-08-10T11:58:07Z

-            oldAttributeDefinition.getName(),
-            oldAttributeDefinition.getAttributeType().getClass().getName(),
-            newAttributeDefinitionDraft.getAttributeType().getClass().getName()));
+        updateActions = Stream


what about the case when the type of the attributeDefinition has changed?

ok I saw it down there. Please disregard this comment.

heshamMassoud · 2018-08-10T11:59:05Z

+     * result. If no update action is needed, for example in case where both the {@link ProductType} and the
+     * {@link ProductTypeDraft} have the same description, an empty {@link List} is returned.
+     *
+     * @param oldProductType the product which should be updated.


the product which should be updated. -> the {@link ProductType} which should be updated.

heshamMassoud · 2018-08-10T12:00:10Z

+     * {@link ProductTypeDraft} have the same description, an empty {@link List} is returned.
+     *
+     * @param oldProductType the product which should be updated.
+     * @param newProductType the product draft where we get the new data.


the product draft where we get the new data. -> the {@link ProductTypeDraft} which should be updated.

heshamMassoud · 2018-08-10T12:32:05Z

+                            return new ArrayList<UpdateAction<ProductType>>();
+                        }
+
+                    })


general questions about this method: Why does it take already a map newAttributeDefinitionDraftsNameMap as a parameter and not a list? can't the map be already created inside of it as it's only needed by it?

you are right! it was an old version that used a map. After a code review in the price sync we thought it was better to use a list because is less coupled and more close to the original parameters.

I change it

heshamMassoud · 2018-08-10T12:33:35Z

 import io.sphere.sdk.commands.UpdateAction;
 import io.sphere.sdk.products.attributes.AttributeDefinition;
 import io.sphere.sdk.products.attributes.AttributeDefinitionBuilder;
+import io.sphere.sdk.products.attributes.LocalizedStringAttributeType;


There is a type in the name of the package of this test class:
producttuypeactionutils -> producttypeactionutils ;)

heshamMassoud · 2018-08-10T12:35:25Z

+
+import javax.annotation.Nullable;
+
+public class ProductTypeSyncStatisticsAssert extends


Great that you are creating your own statistics assertion 🎉

but maybe final 😊 ?

heshamMassoud · 2018-08-10T12:36:52Z

        return CtpQueryUtils.queryAll(syncOptions.getCtpClient(), ProductTypeQuery.of(), productTypePageConsumer)
-                            .thenAccept(result -> isCached = true)
-                            .thenApply(result -> Optional.ofNullable(keyToIdCache.get(key)));
+                .thenAccept(result -> isCached = true)


:( indentation

heshamMassoud · 2018-08-10T12:37:19Z

-                          .collect(
-                              Collectors.toMap(AttributeMetaData::getName, attributeMetaData -> attributeMetaData));
+                .map(AttributeMetaData::of)
+                .collect(


:( indentation

…ructor

…te constructor" This reverts commit 123c8e1.

…ctionUtils#buildRemoveAttributeDefinitionOrAttributeDefinitionUpdateActions

lojzatran · 2018-08-10T13:14:58Z

+public class ProductTypeSyncIT {
+
+    /**
+     * Deletes inventories and supply channels from source and target CTP projects.


The comment doesn't reflect what is happening in the method.

lojzatran · 2018-08-10T14:12:30Z

+     * injected {@link ProductTypeSyncOptions} instance.
+     *
+     * @param productTypeSyncOptions the container of all the options of the sync process including the CTP project
+     *                               client and/ormconfiguration and other sync-specific options.


and/or configuration

I have removed the javadoc from the constructors and add it to the class, so this typo doesn't exist anymore.

lojzatran · 2018-08-10T14:13:20Z

+    /**
+     * Takes a {@link ProductTypeSyncOptions} instance to instantiate a new {@link ProductTypeSync} instance that
+     * could be used to sync product type drafts with the given product types in the CTP project specified in the
+     * injected {@link ProductTypeSyncOptions} instance.


This is quite long sentence and not easy to read. Can you make it a bit clearer?

Actually I would just describe what this class do instead of describing the constructors:

This class syncs product type drafts with the given product types in the CTP project.

lojzatran · 2018-08-10T14:37:33Z

+    protected CompletionStage<ProductTypeSyncStatistics> process(
+            @Nonnull final List<ProductTypeDraft> productTypeDrafts) {
+
+        final List<List<ProductTypeDraft>> batches = batchElements(productTypeDrafts, syncOptions.getBatchSize());


What about validate drafts here? If they're not valid, you don't have to process them further.

The invalid drafts count as a processed items in the statistics so they have to be "processed" (they are not actually processed, but the process method will consider them as a processed items)

What I meant is this:

final List<ProductTypeDraft> validProductTypeDrafts = productTypeDrafts.stream() .filter(this::validateDraft) .collect(toList()); final List<List<ProductTypeDraft>> batches = batchElements(validProductTypeDrafts, syncOptions.getBatchSize());

and remove validateDraft part from processBatch() method.

mmm... but if I validate there, then the counter for "processed" items is not increased in processBatch because the invalid drafts are removed before and processBatch is responsible for increasing the counter of processed items in the statistics.

In the other synchronization of entities, the invalid drafts are considered as processed. Furthermore, in the processBatch the invalid drafts are filtered before processing, so it seems that there is no performance advantage of moving the filtering to the process.

Maybe I'm wrong, what do you think @heshamMassoud ?

No, you are arguments are absolutely correct @jortizsao.

lojzatran · 2018-08-10T14:41:14Z

+            statistics.incrementProcessed(batch.size());
+            return completedFuture(statistics);
+        } else {
+            final Map<String, ProductTypeDraft> keysProductTypeDraftMap = getKeysProductTypeMap(validProductTypeDrafts);


Why do you need map? Is set of keys enough?

I wanted to reuse the existing method getKeysProductTypeMap, but I change it.

lojzatran · 2018-08-10T14:54:48Z

+                .thenApply(Optional::of)
+                .exceptionally(exception -> {
+                    final String errorMessage = format(CTP_PRODUCT_TYPE_FETCH_FAILED, keys);
+                    handleError(errorMessage, exception, keys.size());


I'm confused with keys.size() - if you fail on 1 request, shouldn't you count as 1?

This error is when the request of a batch fails (i.e a batch of 50 product type keys), so if the request fails, it fails for the 50 product type keys, and the counter of failed items should be incremented by 50.

lojzatran · 2018-08-10T15:45:40Z

+     * {@link ProductTypeUpdateActionUtils#buildAttributesUpdateActions}) of a {@link ProductType} and a
+     * {@link ProductTypeDraft}. It returns a {@link List} of {@link UpdateAction}&lt;{@link ProductType}&gt; as a
+     * result. If no update action is needed, for example in case where both the {@link ProductType} and the
+     * {@link ProductTypeDraft} have the same description, an empty {@link List} is returned.


for example in case where both the {@link ProductType} and the {@link ProductTypeDraft} have the same description - I thought this applies only when both product types are exactly the same?

Yes, the javadoc is confusing. It should say when all fields are the same. I change it

lojzatran · 2018-08-10T16:12:59Z

-            newAttributeDefinitionDraft.getAttributeType().getClass().getName()));
+        updateActions = Stream
+            .of(
+                buildChangeLabelUpdateAction(oldAttributeDefinition, newAttributeDefinitionDraft),


What about changeAttributeName?

The attribute name is the 'key' of the attribute (it's unique), so there can't be a changeAttributeName as update action.

A change in the attribute name will mean a deletion of the old attribute and the creation of the new attribute.

lojzatran · 2018-08-10T16:15:00Z

-                        buildActions(oldAttributeDefinition, attributeDefinitionDraft)
-                    )
+                    .map(attributeDefinitionDraft -> {
+                        // attribute type is required so if null we let commercetools to throw exception


What do you mean by this comment? In the line below you check for nullability anyway.

attributeDefinitionDraft.getAttributeType() != null

This comment means that even knowing that the product type is invalid (because the attribute type is required for an attribute) we don't throw any exception.

We let commercetools to throw the exception. This is a decision we made because the commercetools documentation states that the attribute type is required, and we decided not throw library validations for those cases that are documented in commercetools.

In this case the validation is just for checking if there is attribute type to avoid a null pointer exception in the haveSameAttributeType.

lojzatran · 2018-08-13T10:35:53Z

+    public void getReportMessage_WithIncrementedStats_ShouldGetCorrectMessage() {
+        productTypeSyncStatistics.incrementCreated(1);
+        productTypeSyncStatistics.incrementFailed(1);
+        productTypeSyncStatistics.incrementUpdated(1);


I would give created=1, failed=2, updated=3 so you know that you didn't mix the variables.

heshamMassoud

With these comments I finalise my review on the PR. So It should be approved as soon as they are addressed ;) @jortizsao

heshamMassoud · 2018-08-10T15:46:28Z

+import static com.commercetools.sync.integration.commons.utils.SphereClientUtils.CTP_SOURCE_CLIENT;
+import static com.commercetools.sync.integration.commons.utils.SphereClientUtils.CTP_TARGET_CLIENT;
+
+public class ProductTypeITUtils {


final and private empty constructor.

heshamMassoud · 2018-08-10T15:50:33Z

+     * injected {@link ProductTypeSyncOptions} instance.
+     *
+     * @param productTypeSyncOptions the container of all the options of the sync process including the CTP project
+     *                               client and/ormconfiguration and other sync-specific options.


and/or configuration

The comment has been removed from the constructors and added it to the class as recommended by @lojzatran in his code review

heshamMassoud · 2018-08-10T15:51:22Z

+     * injected {@link ProductTypeSyncOptions} instance.
+     *
+     * @param productTypeSyncOptions the container of all the options of the sync process including the CTP project
+     *                               client and/ormconfiguration and other sync-specific options.


and/or configuration

The comment has been removed from the constructors and added it to the class as recommended by @lojzatran in his code review

heshamMassoud · 2018-08-17T07:35:54Z

+
+## Caveats
+
+1. Product types are either created or updated. Currently the tool does not support product type deletion.


I think in your implementation of the product type sync, syncing product types with an attribute of type NestedType will not work as you will need to resolve the references on this product type. So I would add it as a Caveat that currently product type sync does not support product types with attributes of nested type yet.

Would be nice if we create an issue for it also, so we can address it in the future ;)

you are right. I add it. thanks!

heshamMassoud · 2018-08-17T07:37:59Z

 - [Categories](/docs/usage/CATEGORY_SYNC.md)
 - [Products](/docs/usage/PRODUCT_SYNC.md) (_Beta_: Not recommended for production use yet.)
 - [InventoryEntries](/docs/usage/INVENTORY_SYNC.md) (_Beta_: Not recommended for production use yet.)
+ - [ProductTypes](/docs/usage/PRODUCT_TYPE_SYNC.md) (_Beta_: Not recommended for production use yet.)


The reason Products and InventoryEntries was marked as Beta, is because the Product Sync is still missing reference resolution of values of attributes with type referenceType and because Inventory Sync is not completely tested.

So I was wondering why the product type sync would still be marked with this note.

but now I see it makes sense because it's still missing support for NestedType attributes..

we can keep it in beta or remove it (the ball is in your court xD). The Nestedtype is in Beta in commercetools, so keep the product type sync in Beta just for that reason maybe is not enough.

I put it in Beta because even after already tested it and so on... I thought it was wise to set it as Beta just for some time until we have confidence that it actually works as the customers expect.

WDYT?

I put it in Beta because even after already tested it and so on... I thought it was wise to set it as Beta just for some time until we have confidence that it actually works as the customers expect.

I put it in Beta because even after already tested it and so on... I thought it was wise to set it as Beta just for some time until we have confidence that it actually works as the customers expect.

heshamMassoud · 2018-08-17T08:03:53Z

+
+            return fetchExistingProductTypes(keys)
+                .thenCompose(oldProductTypes -> syncBatch(oldProductTypes, validProductTypeDrafts))
+                .thenApply((ignored) -> {


the parantheses around the ignored are not needed ;)

heshamMassoud · 2018-08-17T08:43:53Z

+        assertThat(oldProductTypeAfter.get().getName()).isEqualTo(PRODUCT_TYPE_NAME_2);
+        assertThat(oldProductTypeAfter.get().getDescription()).isEqualTo(PRODUCT_TYPE_DESCRIPTION_2);
+        assertAttributesAreEqual(oldProductTypeAfter.get().getAttributes(),
+            singletonList(ATTRIBUTE_DEFINITION_DRAFT_1));


instead of those 4 asserts and checking that it is not empty explicitly and doing .get() after. You can do it like this:

assertThat(oldProductTypeAfter).hasValueSatisfying(productType -> { assertThat(productType.getName()).isEqualTo(PRODUCT_TYPE_NAME_2); assertThat(productType.getDescription()).isEqualTo(PRODUCT_TYPE_DESCRIPTION_2); assertAttributesAreEqual(productType.getAttributes(), singletonList(ATTRIBUTE_DEFINITION_DRAFT_1)); });

you can use it across all asserts of this class actually ;)

heshamMassoud · 2018-08-17T08:54:52Z

+    }
+
+    @Test
+    public void sync_beforeUpdate_ShouldCallBeforeUpdateCallback() {


I am wondering why are these tests significant? Namely:

public void sync_beforeCreate_ShouldCallBeforeCreateCallback

public void sync_beforeCreate_ShouldNotCallBeforeUpdateCallback

public void sync_beforeUpdate_ShouldCallBeforeUpdateCallback

public void sync_beforeUpdate_ShouldNotCallBeforeCreateCallback

Basically is to verify that the right callbacks are called in the correct actions.

i.e How would you verify that applyBeforeUpdateCallBack function is called when a product type is created?

but do you think we really need an integration test for that, isn't a unit test sufficient to test that behaviour?

@jortizsao I created an issue for it #302 you can check it later. So we don't block the release ;)

heshamMassoud · 2018-08-17T08:56:30Z

+                "product_type_key_" + Integer.toString(i),
+                "product_type_name_" + Integer.toString(i),
+                "product_type_description_" + Integer.toString(i),
+                Arrays.asList(ATTRIBUTE_DEFINITION_DRAFT_1)


you can use here instead: singletonList(ATTRIBUTE_DEFINITION_DRAFT_1)

heshamMassoud · 2018-08-17T08:57:31Z

+            PRODUCT_TYPE_KEY_1,
+            PRODUCT_TYPE_NAME_1,
+            PRODUCT_TYPE_DESCRIPTION_1,
+            Arrays.asList(ATTRIBUTE_DEFINITION_DRAFT_1)


singletonList(ATTRIBUTE_DEFINITION_DRAFT_1)

heshamMassoud · 2018-09-04T08:11:04Z

@jortizsao We are also missing benchmarks for the product Type Sync. I'll create it as an issue for now. #301

heshamMassoud · 2018-09-04T08:17:23Z

release notes entries are also missing. I will add them.

heshamMassoud · 2018-09-04T08:18:33Z

+            .of(CTP_TARGET_CLIENT)
+            .build();
+
+        ProductTypeSyncOptions spyProductTypeSyncOptions = spy(productTypeSyncOptions);


Also mentioned in the same issue: #302

jortizsao changed the title ~~286 add product type sync~~ WIP 286 add product type sync Aug 1, 2018

jortizsao added 3 commits August 8, 2018 11:10

#286 Add ProductTypeSync class

eefa234

* Add process method * Add process batch method * Add update existing product type method * Add create product type method * Update product type service * Add integration tests

#286 Add test for the product type statistics message

ec77071

#286 Rebase onto master

b144368

jortizsao force-pushed the 286-add-product-type-sync branch from a02e50a to b144368 Compare August 8, 2018 09:34

jortizsao changed the title ~~WIP 286 add product type sync~~ 286 Add product type sync Aug 8, 2018

jortizsao requested review from heshamMassoud and lojzatran August 8, 2018 10:37

jortizsao added 5 commits August 8, 2018 18:26

#286 Add integration tests for errors coming from commercetools

f92c96b

#286 Fix issues in code review

c3d86f7

Merge branch 'master' into 286-add-product-type-sync

d541b2d

#286 Fix conflict with master

641d016

heshamMassoud suggested changes Aug 10, 2018

View reviewed changes

jortizsao added 11 commits August 10, 2018 15:40

#286 Add final to ProductTypeSyncOptions

34ffaea

#286 Make ProductTypeSyncStatistics final class and add private const…

123c8e1

…ructor

#286 Update javadocs

7a196a6

#286 Fix typo in package name

83a625c

Revert "#286 Make ProductTypeSyncStatistics final class and add priva…

db30c64

…te constructor" This reverts commit 123c8e1.

#286 Use list instead of map in ProductTypeUpdateAttributeDefinitionA…

6f72b62

…ctionUtils#buildRemoveAttributeDefinitionOrAttributeDefinitionUpdateActions

#286 Make ProductTypeSyncStatisticsAssert final class

23f9597

#286 Fix indentation

2b9a06a

#286 Remove DuplicateKeyException from signature

9f0255d

#286 Fix typos in test cases

7df3315

#286 Add test for ProductTypeSyncStatistics

f2e2841

jortizsao force-pushed the 286-add-product-type-sync branch from 68641cc to f2e2841 Compare August 11, 2018 16:48

jortizsao added 2 commits August 11, 2018 18:49

#286 Update README.md

c99a751

#286 Fix integration test

13f63d1

lojzatran suggested changes Aug 13, 2018

View reviewed changes

jortizsao added 6 commits August 13, 2018 15:55

#286 Remove useless map

f04583d

#286 Remove useless Optional list

350a08f

#286 Chante variable name to 'ignored'

f894dbd

#286 Update javadoc

a406d30

#286 Update javadoc

7897d84

#286 Update test case to avoid variables mismatch

e93cbf8

heshamMassoud suggested changes Aug 17, 2018

View reviewed changes

jortizsao added 9 commits August 17, 2018 15:40

#286 Fix javadoc

2b02eb2

#286 Add final and private constructor to ProductTypeITUtils

eb31991

#286 Add caveat for Nested types attributes

02d0eff

#286 Remove useless parentheses

cbc9b96

#286 Change getKeysProductTypeMap from protected to private

1602aff

#286 Refactor syncBatch method

a3dc4dd

#286 Align functions chain

959790a

#286 Refactor tests

601ffb1

#286 Change Array.asList by singletonList

ed60b40

lojzatran approved these changes Sep 4, 2018

View reviewed changes

heshamMassoud reviewed Sep 4, 2018

View reviewed changes

heshamMassoud added 2 commits September 4, 2018 11:00

#286: Add release notes.

382124d

#286: Remove redundant throws declarations.

4d734f8

heshamMassoud approved these changes Sep 4, 2018

View reviewed changes

heshamMassoud added 5 commits September 4, 2018 11:28

#286: Replace hipchat with slack.

817f84c

#286: Fix slack template.

3a92f98

#286: Break lines in slack message.

1199597

#286: Fix slack message template.

8909d5e

#286: Fix error messages according changes on error message from API.

3b5b517

heshamMassoud merged commit 4403280 into master Sep 4, 2018

heshamMassoud deleted the 286-add-product-type-sync branch September 4, 2018 14:34


		import static java.lang.String.format;

		public class ProductTypeSyncStatistics extends BaseSyncStatistics {


		import javax.annotation.Nullable;

		public class ProductTypeSyncStatisticsAssert extends


		## Caveats

		1. Product types are either created or updated. Currently the tool does not support product type deletion.

Conversation

jortizsao commented Aug 1, 2018 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary

Description

Todo

Uh oh!

codecov-io commented Aug 1, 2018 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

heshamMassoud left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jortizsao commented Aug 1, 2018 •

edited

Loading

codecov-io commented Aug 1, 2018 •

edited

Loading