-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/59326/#review175275
-----------------------------------------------------------


Ship it!




Ship It!

- Jared Stewart


On May 17, 2017, 1:10 a.m., Kirk Lund wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/59326/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 17, 2017, 1:10 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for geode, Jinmei Liao, Jared Stewart, Ken Howe, and Patrick 
> Rhomberg.
> 
> 
> Bugs: GEODE-2934
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-2934
> 
> 
> Repository: geode
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> GEODE-2934: refactor AnalyzeSerializablesJUnitTest and subclasses
> 
> Subclasses now only need to override the method "String getModuleName()" and 
> return "geode-xxx" where "xxx" is the name of the geode module.
> 
> Eliminate lots of duplicated code, use SystemUtils for Java version check. 
> Convert statics to member variables. Move setup code from tests to the 
> @Before method. Use static imports to reduce line lengths. Generally make it 
> easier to read and debug (this test gave me some issues during recent 
> refactoring).
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   geode-core/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/internal/lang/SystemUtils.java 
> 3485ede59 
>   
> geode-core/src/test/java/org/apache/geode/codeAnalysis/AnalyzeSerializablesJUnitTest.java
>  5b78f065f 
>   
> geode-core/src/test/java/org/apache/geode/internal/lang/SystemUtilsJUnitTest.java
>  8a83dc082 
>   
> geode-cq/src/test/java/org/apache/geode/codeAnalysis/AnalyzeCQSerializablesJUnitTest.java
>  747dd8b4e 
>   
> geode-wan/src/test/java/org/apache/geode/codeAnalysis/AnalyzeWANSerializablesJUnitTest.java
>  77c541cbd 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/59326/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> precheckin in progress
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Kirk Lund
> 
>

Reply via email to