Add CI Test Run using Latest JDK - #31003
Conversation
|
This pull request is protected by Check Enforcer. What is Check Enforcer?Check Enforcer helps ensure all pull requests are covered by at least one check-run (typically an Azure Pipeline). When all check-runs associated with this pull request pass then Check Enforcer itself will pass. Why am I getting this message?You are getting this message because Check Enforcer did not detect any check-runs being associated with this pull request within five minutes. This may indicate that your pull request is not covered by any pipelines and so Check Enforcer is correctly blocking the pull request being merged. What should I do now?If the check-enforcer check-run is not passing and all other check-runs associated with this PR are passing (excluding license-cla) then you could try telling Check Enforcer to evaluate your pull request again. You can do this by adding a comment to this pull request as follows: What if I am onboarding a new service?Often, new services do not have validation pipelines associated with them, in order to bootstrap pipelines for a new service, you can issue the following command as a pull request comment: |
|
/azp run java - search |
|
Azure Pipelines failed to run 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run java - search |
|
Azure Pipelines failed to run 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run java - search |
|
Azure Pipelines failed to run 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run java - search |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run java - search |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run java - search |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azp run java - search |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
| "TestFromSource": false, | ||
| "TestGoals": "surefire:test", | ||
| "TestOptions": "" | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll have to look, but I wonder if there are some opportunities to consolidate the matrix again.
| * This constructor shouldn't be called as it will produce a {@link CloudEventDataFormat} which doesn't | ||
| * have a String enum value. | ||
| */ | ||
| public CloudEventDataFormat() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should not have public constructors for expandable enums but making this ctor private now is a breaking change. Should we consider throwing an exception in the ctor at least to prevent the enum from being invalid? We don't validate that an enum has a value anywhere, so, using this ctor can lead to issues down the road.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Both making this private and throwing in the public constructor would be breaking changes requiring code updates. Given that I'd rather make the better long-term fix in making the constructor private.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, both are breaking - one is compile-time and the other is a runtime breaking change. Making the ctor private will mean revapi flagging it, requiring a major version update and API view approval.
Ideally, we should have private ctors (which should be our guidance from now on for all new expandable enums) but not sure if we can change all existing expandable enums to have private ctors because of the problems listed above.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As discussed offline, we'll not change the behavior of the default constructor but instead add @Deprecated annotation to these ctors.
| * This constructor shouldn't be called as it will produce a {@link CloudEventDataFormat} which doesn't | ||
| * have a String enum value. | ||
| */ | ||
| public CloudEventDataFormat() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As discussed offline, we'll not change the behavior of the default constructor but instead add @Deprecated annotation to these ctors.
4 participants
Description
Fixes #30865
Adds an additional CI test run using the latest released JDK version.
All SDK Contribution checklist:
General Guidelines and Best Practices
Testing Guidelines