Making refresh modifier public so that clients can do AOP failover

[asarkar]

No description provided.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #634 into master will not change coverage.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #634   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   72.19%   72.19%           
=======================================
  Files          70       70           
  Lines        2309     2309           
  Branches      322      322           
=======================================
  Hits         1667     1667           
  Misses        493      493           
  Partials      149      149

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
.../server/environment/JGitEnvironmentRepository.java	87.62% <ø> (ø)	✅

---

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 1a839f9...2aabe26. Read the comment docs.

[spencergibb]

Why do you need to do AOP on refresh()? It's only called from one place getLocations(), couldn't you do it there?

[asarkar]

@spencergibb Not without extending AbstractScmAccessor, protected methods from which are used in getLocations.

[asarkar]

@spencergibb What does the team think? This is really a trivial change, so if you don't see a problem with it, I'd like to get it merged. It'd help the ambitious clients.

[spencergibb]

@asarkar can you explain in more detail why AOP wouldn't work around getLocations() while it would around refresh()?

[asarkar]

It's not that getLocations can't be intercepted, that's not hard. The question is what the alternative implementation might be when we don't want to execute the original method. Currently getLocations uses protected methods from AbstractScmAccessor, thus making it harded to provided an alternative without having another subclass of AbstractScmAccessor.
If you have a suggestion for an alternative getLocations without subclassing AbstractScmAccessor, I can do that.

[spencergibb]

I think it would be helpful to step back and see why you are trying to do this rather than implementation details. That would help drive how to achieve your purposes.

[asarkar]

I believe this #631 answers your question.

[dendron8]

@asarkar do you have an example of how you used this to provide failover? did you failover to a native/local repo?