-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
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
Issue-543 JdbcDatabaseContainer now accepts Future as image name #582
Conversation
@bsideup Any idea why gradle fails on Travis? Works on my machine :) |
@iNikem I think you accidentally changed gradle-wrapper.jar and added it to commit. Try revert all changes with gradle-wrapper.jar and commit it.
|
@iNikem we're fixing the issue with corrupted JAR files in the master branch, could you please revert your Gradle Wrapper change and keep only code change for now? :) |
@bsideup I have reverted it to your commit, but it still shows as changed. |
@iNikem yes, because of incorrect git reset master
git add modules/jdbc/src/main/java/org/testcontainers/containers/JdbcDatabaseContainer.java
git commit -m "Closes #543 JdbcDatabaseContainer now accepts Future as image name"
git push --force |
@bsideup Ok, Travis is green. Approve and merge? :) |
* The '?' character must be included | ||
* @return a full JDBC URL including queryString | ||
*/ | ||
protected String constructUrlForConnection(String queryString) { |
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.
This change is unrelated, isn't it?
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.
No, and I haven't done them. Will try to revert...
@iNikem please mention your change in |
# Conflicts: # modules/jdbc/src/main/java/org/testcontainers/containers/JdbcDatabaseContainer.java
Now I am quite confused about what is going on with this PR and how changes appear here. Let me decline it and make a fresh new branch for this. |
Yes sorry about the |
Fixes #543
But now I have a question: may be a better approach would be to accept
Supplier
instead ofFuture
? It seems to suit the desired functionality better.