New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add option for table prefix to DynamoDB #7598
Conversation
42, | ||
ByteString.copyFrom(new byte[400 * 1024])))) | ||
.isInstanceOf(ObjTooLargeException.class); | ||
soft.assertThatThrownBy( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Duplicated code?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Potentially, although I did not modify the body of that test at all so the duplication was there already.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK let's leave it, as it's not related to your changes 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, thank you for the contribution @maxfirman!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks a lot for your contrubution @maxfirman ! Just a couple of minor nitpicks... I hope you do not mind.
@@ -40,9 +40,21 @@ public String getName() { | |||
return DynamoDBBackendFactory.NAME; | |||
} | |||
|
|||
@SuppressWarnings("ClassEscapesDefinedScope") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IntelliJ flags this annotation as redundant... Could you double check, please?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've removed it. Although interestingly my IntilliJ complains when I remove the annotation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What does it say? My EAP 2 build is happy :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess it might be complaining about returning the package-private DynamoDBBackend
type, but the interface defines the return value as Backend
... I think the code is correct and IJ was overzealous :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Correction: I was running my old IJ built for this review before and it did not give that warning. I switched to EAP 3 (just now) and it does indeed issue the warning. Having considered the code carefully, I think the warning is justified.
I also see some usages that rely on the more specific return type... so cleaning this up is probably beyond the scope of this PR. Let's not suppress the warning, though, as a reminder to revisit this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We have the same issue in BigTable impl... we return Backend
there, not BigTableBackend
.
Closes #7595