[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1981?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14069115#comment-14069115
 ] 

Hadoop QA commented on ZOOKEEPER-1981:
--------------------------------------

-1 overall.  Here are the results of testing the latest attachment 
  http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12656890/ZOOKEEPER-1981.patch
  against trunk revision 1612362.

    +1 @author.  The patch does not contain any @author tags.

    -1 tests included.  The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified 
tests.
                        Please justify why no new tests are needed for this 
patch.
                        Also please list what manual steps were performed to 
verify this patch.

    +1 javadoc.  The javadoc tool did not generate any warning messages.

    +1 javac.  The applied patch does not increase the total number of javac 
compiler warnings.

    -1 findbugs.  The patch appears to introduce 3 new Findbugs (version 2.0.3) 
warnings.

    +1 release audit.  The applied patch does not increase the total number of 
release audit warnings.

    -1 core tests.  The patch failed core unit tests.

    +1 contrib tests.  The patch passed contrib unit tests.

Test results: 
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-Build/2210//testReport/
Findbugs warnings: 
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-Build/2210//artifact/trunk/build/test/findbugs/newPatchFindbugsWarnings.html
Console output: 
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-Build/2210//console

This message is automatically generated.

> Fix Dodgy Code Warnings
> -----------------------
>
>                 Key: ZOOKEEPER-1981
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1981
>             Project: ZooKeeper
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>            Reporter: Hongchao Deng
>            Assignee: Hongchao Deng
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 3.5.0
>
>         Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-1981.patch
>
>
> There are two cases:
> 1. a duplicate check of null bytes.
> 2. a lot switch statement without default case.
> For the default case, I suggest 
> 1. throwing an exception as a way to break the program. It's highly 
> unexpected. 
> 2. or LOG.warn it.
> I am doing the second right now to keep the original.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Reply via email to