Github user nickwallen commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1009#discussion_r187344126
--- Diff:
metron-platform/metron-parsers/src/test/java/org/apache/metron/writers/integration/WriterBoltIntegrationTest.java
---
@@ -88,9 +108,7 @@ public void initialize(Map<String, Object>
validationConfig, Map<String, Object>
public static String parserConfigJSON;
@Test
- public void test() throws UnableToStartException, IOException,
ParseException {
-
- UnitTestHelper.setLog4jLevel(CSVParser.class,
org.apache.log4j.Level.FATAL);
+ public void
parser_with_global_validations_writes_bad_records_to_error_topic() throws
Exception {
--- End diff --
> I really don't like adding or reading javadoc where code can communicate
clearly. I think it's redundant to add it where method and class names can
appropriately capture the intent.
Yes, I can see your point, but the definition of what is clear can be very
different between the original author and others maintaining that code. Or
even the original author and their future self, months later. Redundancy is a
small price to pay for clarity. This is especially true in an open source
project which we hope long outlives ourselves. But we can disagree on this
point.
I offered the refactor/rename comments only as suggestions. Do whatever
you think is sufficient to make it more clear. I'm sure any little effort to
improve clarity will win me over. I'll be exceptionally pragmatic here.
---
