Sorry, seems like I missed NOT in (3). :-( So my opinion on the test coverage is NOT enough, which makes re-factoring dangerous.
I hope that will make the question clearer. Yevgeny ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Yevgeny Zaspitsky" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2014 3:33:31 PM > Subject: Implementing equals & hashCode methods > > Hi All, > > Recently I reviewed a patch that adds a new business entity to the engine. > The entity class has the following members: > > * id > * data center id > * name > * type > * some other properties that do not belong to the entity key > > The equals & hashCode methods were implemented in a way that include all > members. > I asked the patch author to change that, so it'll include only business key > (data center id, name and type), which define the entity uniqueness. > Also I found that many other business entities are implemented in a similar > way (include all class members in equals & hashCode). > > I'm a new to oVirt, so I'd like to ask your opinion on the issue. > > > 1. Do you agree with my approach on equals & hashCode. > 2. If you agree with my approach in general, should we implement it in > the new introduced code or should we adhere to the old convention even > we do not agree with it? > 3. Should we re-factor the old code (it might be dangerous as we do have > enough unit test coverage)? > > Thanks in advance, > Yevgeny > _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
