gh-2425 remove duplicate updateOperationInput

[GCHQDev404]

Related Issue

• Resolve Remove duplicate updateOperationInput #2425

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #2426 (9ff4732) into develop (cae6d6b) will decrease coverage by 0.48%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             develop    #2426      +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage      66.87%   66.39%   -0.49%     
+ Complexity      2439     2437       -2     
=============================================
  Files            967      932      -35     
  Lines          31749    30242    -1507     
  Branches        3857     3645     -212     
=============================================
- Hits           21232    20078    -1154     
+ Misses          8863     8588     -275     
+ Partials        1654     1576      -78     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...er/access/predicate/user/DefaultUserPredicate.java	57.14% <ø> (ø)
...gchq/gaffer/graph/hook/NamedOperationResolver.java	85.18% <ø> (+1.31%)	⬆️
...store/operation/handler/OperationChainHandler.java	91.30% <ø> (+18.33%)	⬆️
.../java/uk/gov/gchq/gaffer/spark/SparkConstants.java	50.00% <ø> (ø)
...v/gchq/gaffer/spark/utils/scala/DataFrameUtil.java	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...hq/gaffer/rest/controller/OperationController.java	76.05% <ø> (ø)
...e/operation/handler/util/OperationHandlerUtil.java	75.00% <100.00%> (+20.00%)	⬆️
.../gov/gchq/gaffer/data/graph/entity/EntityMaps.java	71.42% <0.00%> (-14.29%)	⬇️
...chq/gaffer/data/graph/adjacency/AdjacencyMaps.java	85.71% <0.00%> (-14.29%)	⬇️
.../java/uk/gov/gchq/gaffer/commonutil/OneOrMore.java	74.32% <0.00%> (-2.71%)	⬇️
... and 41 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 23c323e...9ff4732. Read the comment docs.

[n3101]

@GCHQDev404 Is this a breaking change?

[GCHQDev404]

@n3101

I wouldn't consider it a breaking change, you need someone in the wild extending the class and overriding the fundamental protected inputUpdate. You might as well implement your own Handler or override the doOperation.

Would you prefer me to add back in protected method and a junk call out to util?

 protected void updateOperationInput(final Operation op, final Object result) {
        OperationHandlerUtil.updateOperationInput(op, result);
    }

[n3101]

@GCHQDev404 I refer your question to @d21211122 to answer

[GCHQDev404]

@n3101

I wouldn't consider it a breaking change, you need someone in the wild extending the class and overriding the fundamental protected inputUpdate. You might as well implement your own Handler or override the doOperation.

Would you prefer me to add back in protected method and a junk call out to util?

 protected void updateOperationInput(final Operation op, final Object result) {
        OperationHandlerUtil.updateOperationInput(op, result);
    }

I'm going to self answer no. because it would be a dead hanging method. because I would call the util method. If someone wants to override how to update the input of operations in a chain then can self implement the method.

[t92549]

I agree this isn't a breaking change unless someone is doing something very strange, in which case it will be an easy fix anyway