-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 86
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat(v2): batch validation with partial failure #1621
base: v2
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
💾 Artifacts Size Report
|
|
Hey @jeromevdl this is a monster. Do you mind when you have a chance doing a quick writeup of the changes at a high level to start from? |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## v2 #1621 +/- ##
=============================================
- Coverage 89.79% 77.84% -11.96%
- Complexity 406 479 +73
=============================================
Files 44 49 +5
Lines 1274 1733 +459
Branches 165 261 +96
=============================================
+ Hits 1144 1349 +205
- Misses 88 295 +207
- Partials 42 89 +47 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
...on/src/main/java/software/amazon/lambda/powertools/validation/internal/ValidationAspect.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...on/src/main/java/software/amazon/lambda/powertools/validation/internal/ValidationAspect.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
@scottgerring this one is ready for review |
...on/src/main/java/software/amazon/lambda/powertools/validation/internal/ValidationAspect.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...on/src/main/java/software/amazon/lambda/powertools/validation/internal/ValidationAspect.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...on/src/main/java/software/amazon/lambda/powertools/validation/internal/ValidationAspect.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
I should create one (or 2 ? kinesis/sqs) end-to-end tests for this maybe, wdyt @scottgerring ? |
To be honest I feel like it might be better to invest time stabilizing the existing tests. As it stands more tests are just going to lead to more "was that an actual build failure or not", which has already put us in a situation where we don't trust the suite. Could we get coverage out of integration style tests instead? |
Coverage is done with Unit Tests. And E2E tests are quite stable, sometimes they time out but we rarely troubleshoot failed tests... |
|
I mean, you are concerned that something in here isn't being covered. Can you get it covered without relying on e2e tests?
this is the problem I am referring to :D if we don't bother looking when they break. |
|
Issue #, if available: #1496
Description of changes:
Adding partial failure for validation with SQS and Kinesis. Modification of the ValidationAspect.java to validate each messages of SQS/Kinesis batches and put invalid messages in partial batch failures list of the response. After the handler, we merge with user batch failures.
Checklist
Breaking change checklist
RFC issue #:
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.