Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
fix: QueryJob.exception() *returns* the errors, not raises them #467
fix: QueryJob.exception() *returns* the errors, not raises them #467
Changes from 2 commits
a85fe8f
07af774
7d9a7e8
a19f07e
f3ddc14
ef2fe8e
56c4e96
739627a
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why use the private property in this and the other tests? any objections to calling
job.exception()
here and the other tests?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The reasoning was that
job.exception()
can execute additional logic, and errors in that method would make the tests fordone()
fail, too, even if there was nothing wrong with thedone()
method itself.One could argue that the chosen unit of test is too small, and that the class itself should represent a unit as opposed to its individual methods, but addressing that would require quite some refactoring (we already tinker with internal
_properties
, for instance).Here, practicality beats purity IMHO, thus the "cheating" by examining the internal state of the class. Or do you have a strong opinion on this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Works for me. I agree that ideally we'd have higher-level tests than this, but makes sense to stay with existing conventions, especially given our 100% coverage requirement.