Support to UnMarshall Blob type payload data in XMlProtocol #2240
Conversation
|
|
||
| if (!CollectionUtils.isNullOrEmpty(element)) { | ||
| Object unmarshalled = unmarshaller.unmarshall(context, element, (SdkField<Object>) field); | ||
| field.set(sdkPojo, unmarshalled); | ||
| if (payloadMemberAsBlobType.isPresent() && payloadMemberAsBlobType.get().equals(field) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is similar to JsonProtocolUnmarshaller
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2240 +/- ##
============================================
- Coverage 77.64% 77.63% -0.01%
Complexity 335 335
============================================
Files 1231 1231
Lines 38724 38733 +9
Branches 3047 3051 +4
============================================
+ Hits 30066 30072 +6
- Misses 7199 7202 +3
Partials 1459 1459
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
| if ((!response.isSuccessful() || hasPayloadMembers(sdkPojo)) && responseContent.isPresent() && | ||
| !contentLengthZero(response)) { | ||
| !contentLengthZero(response) && !getBlobTypePayloadMemberToUnmarshal(sdkPojo).isPresent()) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is long with a lot of nesting. Can we extract it and apply some names to the intermediate values?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
removed context.response().content().isPresent check as we already do in LineNumber 83.
Replaced with local variable
| public static Optional<SdkField<?>> getBlobTypePayloadMemberToUnmarshal(SdkPojo sdkPojo) { | ||
| return sdkPojo.sdkFields().stream() | ||
| .filter(f -> f.location() == MarshallLocation.PAYLOAD | ||
| || MarshallerUtil.locationInUri(f.location())) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why would a payload member be in the URI?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Settings that don't make sense for the given input/output direction should default to body. E.g. URI fields in a response should go into the payload.
#1996
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it still be an explicit payload member in this case? (Line 79, or would that filter it out?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
From Original #1996_Snippet which added this for Json ,it looks like it would still be explicit payload member.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we add a protocol test for this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks Matt , Whi;e I was trying to come up with protocol test cases for the above cases I realized that the MarshallerUtil.locationInUri(f.location()) is not necessary in this case. It is a dead code since it will be filtered at next stage where it checks for f.containsTrait(PayloadTrait.class);
I had taken wrong reference for parsing SDK_Bytes actually it should have been JsonProtocolUnmarshaller.java#L207-L209
Sorry for the confusion , removed these extra checks.
|
SonarCloud Quality Gate failed. |
Description
Motivation and Context
Testing
Screenshots (if appropriate)
Types of changes
Checklist
mvn installsucceedsLicense