-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/66656/#review205669
-----------------------------------------------------------




core/src/main/java/org/apache/oozie/action/hadoop/JavaActionExecutor.java
Lines 1119-1120 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/66656/#comment288562>

    Do a multi-catch instead.
    
    Would also re-throw some kind of `IllegalStateException` with appropriate 
error message, but by no means a `NullPointerException` down the code path 
without any meaning.


- András Piros


On July 3, 2018, 1:30 p.m., Mate Juhasz wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/66656/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 3, 2018, 1:30 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for oozie, András Piros and Denes Bodo.
> 
> 
> Bugs: OOZIE-1624
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OOZIE-1624
> 
> 
> Repository: oozie-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> OOZIE-1624 Exclusion pattern for sharelib.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   core/src/main/java/org/apache/oozie/action/hadoop/JavaActionExecutor.java 
> ed809ef0 
>   core/src/main/java/org/apache/oozie/action/hadoop/ShareLibExcluder.java 
> PRE-CREATION 
>   core/src/main/java/org/apache/oozie/service/ShareLibService.java a901567d 
>   
> core/src/test/java/org/apache/oozie/action/hadoop/ActionExecutorTestCase.java 
> f39bba2c 
>   
> core/src/test/java/org/apache/oozie/action/hadoop/TestJavaActionExecutor.java 
> a31079a4 
>   
> core/src/test/java/org/apache/oozie/action/hadoop/TestJavaActionExecutorLibAddition.java
>  PRE-CREATION 
>   core/src/test/java/org/apache/oozie/action/hadoop/TestShareLibExcluder.java 
> PRE-CREATION 
>   docs/src/site/twiki/WorkflowFunctionalSpec.twiki 76cbe21e 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/66656/diff/4/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Tested on a cluster
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mate Juhasz
> 
>

Reply via email to