Closed t92549 closed 1 year ago
This diff shows a lot of changes to the generated files simply because they are unsorted each time they are generated (due to an issue with the api: https://github.com/gchq/Gaffer/issues/2775) I have fixed this issue in this PR in fishbowl by sorting the results before generation: https://github.com/gchq/gaffer-tools/blob/d3f6f7a3ac8b208a08a491bbc6017ecfe462cee4/python-shell/src/fishbowl/fishbowl.py#L113 For an actual diff of how they have changed, see https://github.com/gchq/gaffer-tools/pull/1034/commits/d3f6f7a3ac8b208a08a491bbc6017ecfe462cee4
Merging #1034 (94640cf) into v2-alpha (f640ae3) will not change coverage. The diff coverage is
n/a
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## v2-alpha #1034 +/- ##
===========================================
Coverage 45.15% 45.15%
Complexity 101 101
===========================================
Files 25 25
Lines 897 897
Branches 73 73
===========================================
Hits 405 405
Misses 462 462
Partials 30 30
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 2af6914...94640cf. Read the comment docs.
This diff shows a lot of changes to the generated files simply because they are unsorted each time they are generated (due to an issue with the api: gchq/Gaffer#2775) I have fixed this issue in this PR in fishbowl by sorting the results before generation
Does this mean that issue in Gaffer is no longer required because the issue can be resolved by sorting in the rest-api instead of in Gaffer? Looks like that issue can be closed once this PR is merged.
This diff shows a lot of changes to the generated files simply because they are unsorted each time they are generated (due to an issue with the api: gchq/Gaffer#2775) I have fixed this issue in this PR in fishbowl by sorting the results before generation
Does this mean that issue in Gaffer is no longer required because the issue can be resolved by sorting in the rest-api instead of in Gaffer? Looks like that issue can be closed once this PR is merged.
So it could be closed because, at least for this use case, that is solved. However, I still think it would be nice if the api itself was consistent and didn't need to be sorted client side every time
Related Issue