Server endpoints v2 returning the checkpoins data of a partitioning: 190

AbsaOSS / atum-service

Apache License 2.0

5 stars 1 forks source link

Server endpoints v2 returning the checkpoins data of a partitioning: 190 #194

Closed TebaleloS closed 2 months ago

TebaleloS commented 3 months ago

Created a class to call the DB function to get checkpoint based on the provided partitioning.
Added a function to return the checkpoint from database in the repository.
Defined CheckpointQuery and CheckpointFromDB as input and output types for the partitioning checkpoint operation.
Created a function to get partitioning checkpoints from the database and convert it to checkpointDTO.
Added Unit and integration testing.
Modified some of the properties of a DB function that get partitioning checkpoints.
Added REST API, v2: get checkpoints based on the provided partitioning.

closes #190

github-actions[bot] commented 3 months ago

JaCoCo server module code coverage report - scala 2.13.11

Overall Project	72.06% `-23.65%`	:green_apple:
Files changed	73.64%	:x:

File	Coverage
BaseRepository.scala	100%	:green_apple:
PartitioningRepositoryImpl.scala	100%	:green_apple:
PartitioningControllerImpl.scala	100%	:green_apple:
BaseController.scala	100%	:green_apple:
PartitioningServiceImpl.scala	100%	:green_apple:
BaseService.scala	100%	:green_apple:
CheckpointFromDB.scala	85.83% `-308.66%`	:x:
PlayJsonImplicits.scala	54.84%	:green_apple:
GetPartitioningCheckpoints.scala	54.55% `-56.36%`	:x:

github-actions[bot] commented 2 months ago

JaCoCo model module code coverage report - scala 2.13.11

Overall Project	60.76% `-38.65%`	:green_apple:
Files changed	0%	:x:

File	Coverage
CheckpointQueryDTO.scala	0% `-1385.71%`	:x:

github-actions[bot] commented 2 months ago

JaCoCo agent module code coverage report - scala 2.13.11

Overall Project	86.3%	:green_apple:

There is no coverage information present for the Files changed

lsulak commented 2 months ago

Looks good to me, review finished, just 1 minor thing, kind of consistency reasons; no other remarks outside of that, happy to approve soon!

lsulak commented 2 months ago

There are inconsistent namings. I would personally use getPartitioningCheckpoints everywhere (sometimes you use getPartitioningMeasures instead).

Absolutely, I support this idea. However, I think this PR (and few others) has been here for far too long, and we know that we already have some technical debt in endpoint/operation namings, plus we need to update the agent to support some of the missing operations (especially those for v2).

I'll approve now as I think that it's complete from my PoV.