Skip to content
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

[Spotless] Applying Google Code Format for core #5 #324

Merged

Conversation

MitchellGale
Copy link

Description

Based off opensearch-project#1930, opensearch-project#1931. opensearch-project#1932. opensearch-project#1933 and applies spotless to entire core project. Covers remaining fixes not covered by PR 1-4.

Issues Resolved

opensearch-project#1101

Check List

  • New functionality includes testing.
    • All tests pass, including unit test, integration test and doctest
  • New functionality has been documented.
    • New functionality has javadoc added
    • New functionality has user manual doc added
  • Commits are signed per the DCO using --signoff

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

Signed-off-by: Mitchell Gale <Mitchell.Gale@improving.com>
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 3, 2023

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (integ/sl_GoogleJavaFormat5@a5ecf13). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@                      Coverage Diff                      @@
##             integ/sl_GoogleJavaFormat5     #324   +/-   ##
=============================================================
  Coverage                              ?   97.51%           
  Complexity                            ?     4658           
=============================================================
  Files                                 ?      408           
  Lines                                 ?    11932           
  Branches                              ?      832           
=============================================================
  Hits                                  ?    11635           
  Misses                                ?      290           
  Partials                              ?        7           
Flag Coverage Δ
sql-engine 97.51% <0.00%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

@GumpacG
Copy link

GumpacG commented Aug 4, 2023

Please disable checkstyle

Signed-off-by: Mitchell Gale <Mitchell.Gale@improving.com>
@MitchellGale
Copy link
Author

Please disable checkstyle

Thank you! set to false.

Signed-off-by: Mitchell Gale <Mitchell.Gale@improving.com>
"ValuesOperator",
Map.of("values", List.of(values)),
emptyList())))))))))))),
explain.apply(plan));

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

image

"array_value", ImmutableList.of(1, 2))));
ExprValueUtils.tupleValue(
ImmutableMap.of(
"integer_value",

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👎

Comment on lines +57 to +61
ImmutableList.of(
"%H",
"%I", "%k", "%l", "%i", "%p", "%r", "%S", "%T", " %M", "%W", "%D", "%Y", "%y",
"%a", "%b", "%j", "%m", "%d", "%h", "%s", "%w", "%f", "%q", "%"),
ImmutableList.of(

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Any idea why these lists formatted in different styles?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No idea.... did some experimenting and it's not which of the imutables come first, or the fact they all have % in the first one.... 🤔

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's got something to do with 100 character line limits.... but unsure what is up.

@MitchellGale MitchellGale merged commit 8638f92 into integ/sl_GoogleJavaFormat5 Aug 5, 2023
7 of 20 checks passed
@Yury-Fridlyand Yury-Fridlyand deleted the dev/sl_GoogleJavaFormat5_p2 branch August 5, 2023 02:47
@MitchellGale MitchellGale restored the dev/sl_GoogleJavaFormat5_p2 branch August 8, 2023 19:34
@MitchellGale MitchellGale deleted the dev/sl_GoogleJavaFormat5_p2 branch August 8, 2023 19:35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants