-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 176
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
2807: Removing EquipmentParts whose EquipmentTypes fail to parse #2808
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2808 +/- ##
============================================
- Coverage 10.61% 10.61% -0.01%
+ Complexity 3870 3868 -2
============================================
Files 717 717
Lines 100142 100145 +3
Branches 16414 16415 +1
============================================
- Hits 10635 10634 -1
- Misses 88118 88122 +4
Partials 1389 1389
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
final EquipmentPart ePart = (EquipmentPart) prt; | ||
|
||
// Null Type... parsing failure | ||
if (ePart.getType() == null) { |
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.
Let's log something about this if it happens.
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 looked at it when doing this. There's not enough data to make a useful log... and the useful data is previously logged.
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.
May need to move the check/log earlier in the call stack to catch the part type that was bad.
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 already log it when we fail to restore the equipment type. Just found it can be null at this point and... it's better to remove than deal with it down the line
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.
Is that good @NickAragua? Would like this done for 0.49.3 if possible
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.
Might as well. Not like that piece of equipment is recoverable anyway.
This (I believe... it works, but I'm not sure about unexpected behaviour) fixed #2807.