RussellSpitzer commented on code in PR #1532: URL: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1532#discussion_r2085296325
########## quarkus/service/src/main/java/org/apache/polaris/service/quarkus/config/QuarkusReadinessConfiguration.java: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +/* + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one + * or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file + * distributed with this work for additional information + * regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file + * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the + * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance + * with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at + * + * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + * + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, + * software distributed under the License is distributed on an + * "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY + * KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the + * specific language governing permissions and limitations + * under the License. + */ +package org.apache.polaris.service.quarkus.config; + +import io.quarkus.runtime.annotations.StaticInitSafe; +import io.smallrye.config.ConfigMapping; +import io.smallrye.config.WithDefault; + +@StaticInitSafe +@ConfigMapping(prefix = "polaris.readiness") +public interface QuarkusReadinessConfiguration { + + /** + * Setting this to {@code true} means that Polaris will start up even if severe security risks + * have been detected, accepting the risk of denial-of-service, data-loss, corruption and other + * risks. + */ + @WithDefault("false") + boolean ignoreSevereIssues(); Review Comment: We should aim for small independent code changes whenever possible. Just because two things work well together doesn't mean they should be in the same Pull request. As a generic guide, 1 "feature" per PR, small is better than bigger, independent changes should stay independent. IMHO, if the title can't cover the scope of the changes then the PR should be broken up. I think we have several independent things here as noted in the PR description. Ideally for me even refactors go in separate pull-requests. We've been a bit lax on this recently as we have adopted code from other projects but I don't think we should get in the habit. The general benefits of this approach are for downstream integrators which can cherry-pick changes easier, and reviewers will have an easier time since net small changes are much easier to understand and usually easier to come to agreement on. (Bisecting also becomes much easier). If PR's can only be understood of a larger context, then grouping them in a project is usually the right thing to do or explaining the context in a design doc. I think this pr itself does a great job of mapping out the independent changes in a bulleted list. IMHO, each of those points could probably approached independently since I think we already have consensus on at least some of the Items. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@polaris.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
