fix(artifact): more resilient app version parsing #948
Conversation
emjburns
requested review from
a team,
asher,
robfletcher,
lorin,
luispollo and
gal-yardeni
and removed request for
a team
| val appversion = AppVersion.parseName(version) | ||
| if (appversion?.version != null) { | ||
| summary = summary.copy(displayName = appversion.version) | ||
| } | ||
| if (appversion?.buildNumber != null) { | ||
| summary = summary.copy(build = BuildMetadata(id = appversion.buildNumber.toInt())) | ||
| } | ||
| if (appversion?.commit != null) { | ||
| summary = summary.copy(git = GitMetadata(commit = appversion.commit)) | ||
| } | ||
| summary |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm failing to see how this is different from what you had before, other than setting displayName outside this block above. I find this format harder to read than the one with the property names and inline if statements to the left. It's also potentially copying the whole object 3 times over which I know is not a huge deal but I feel if we just let these spread they may become a problem.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe the current problem is that appversion.buildNumber is null for one of the artifacts, so the appversion.buildNumber.toInt() call fails on line 162. In the new implementation, this call is guarded by a null chcek in line 169.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Lorin is correct. Again, this code should be replaced in Q2.
|
I'd love to see a unit test against the problematic artifact version to verify that the code no longer throws an exception on it. |
| // todo: replace, this is brittle | ||
| val appversion = AppVersion.parseName(version) | ||
| if (appversion?.version != null) { | ||
| summary = summary.copy(displayName = appversion.version) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we ever expect fields of appversion to be null during normal operation? If not, if this if check fails, I'd put a WARN level log statement with the value of theversion function argument to make it easier to debug in the future.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we might fail, we might not fail if that's the case. it definitely puts us into a weird state. once we pull the appversion off the ami though it shouldn't be null. we don't rely on any of the other fields that i'm using here (if i remember correctly). Logging would probably be helpful, you're right.
This PR name might lead you to think that this is less hacky than before. It's not. It's just more wacky-input-safe.