Skip to content
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

[WFCORE-189] Provide a proper detail message when creating an OFE #255

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Nov 1, 2014

Conversation

bstansberry
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Windows Build 331 is now running using a merge of 456e321

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Linux Build 606 is now running using a merge of 456e321

@dmlloyd
Copy link
Member

dmlloyd commented Oct 20, 2014

Looks fine to me

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Windows Build 331 outcome was SUCCESS using a merge of 456e321
Summary: Tests passed: 2688, ignored: 56 Build time: 0:14:34

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Linux Build 606 outcome was SUCCESS using a merge of 456e321
Summary: Tests passed: 2688, ignored: 56 Build time: 0:17:03

@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ public void execute(OperationContext context, ModelNode operation) throws Operat
}
}
catch (IOException e) {
throw new OperationFailedException(new ModelNode().set(e.toString()));
throw new RuntimeException(e);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It might not be very important, but why the changed type of exception?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@kabir thanks for asking, as I'd like a second opinion. And I shouldn't have made this change here anyway, as it's a bit OT to the overall PR.

I changed it because OFE is meant to represent a client failure, not a server fault. And I don't see how an IOException is a client failure.

OTOH...

  1. the standalone variant of this throws OFE, so these should be consistent one way or the other

org.jboss.as.server.deployment.AbstractDeploymentUploadHandler

catch (IOException e) {
    throw ServerLogger.ROOT_LOGGER.caughtIOExceptionUploadingContent(e);
}
  1. the basic difference between RuntimeException and OFE is the former will end up in the server log. Also, if we end up providing proper HTTP response codes, the former will result in a 500 while the latter will result in a 400. But for both of those issues, maybe the OFE result is better?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm going to switch it back to an OFE, built the same as the standalone variant.

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Linux Build 635 is now running using a merge of 7868200

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Windows Build 358 is now running using a merge of 7868200

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Linux Build 635 outcome was SUCCESS using a merge of 7868200
Summary: Tests passed: 2688, ignored: 56 Build time: 0:17:00

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Windows Build 358 outcome was FAILURE using a merge of 7868200
Summary: Execution timeout (new); tests passed: 2416, ignored: 43; org.wildfly.core:wildfly-core-testsuite-domain Build time: 0:30:04

Build problems:

Execution timeout
Process exited with code 1

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Linux Build 667 is now running using a merge of c6c0fc7

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Windows Build 400 is now running using a merge of c6c0fc7

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Windows Build 400 outcome was SUCCESS using a merge of c6c0fc7
Summary: Tests passed: 2708, ignored: 56 Build time: 0:15:06

@wildfly-ci
Copy link

Linux Build 667 outcome was SUCCESS using a merge of c6c0fc7
Summary: Tests passed: 2708, ignored: 56 Build time: 0:18:03

bstansberry added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 1, 2014
[WFCORE-189] Provide a proper detail message when creating an OFE
@bstansberry bstansberry merged commit 5ab5e7f into wildfly:master Nov 1, 2014
@bstansberry bstansberry deleted the WFCORE-189 branch November 1, 2014 03:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
4 participants