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

remove unnecessary protocolRevisionsToUrls and build newServiceUrls d… #15014

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

aruato
Copy link
Contributor

@aruato aruato commented Dec 24, 2024

…irectly

What is the purpose of the change?

The primary role of protocolRevisionsToUrls in the overall code logic is to act as an intermediate cache, mapping (protocol, port, revisions) to urls. However, the ultimate goal is to construct newServiceUrls, and protocolRevisionsToUrls is not directly used elsewhere. This layer can be completely removed, and the results can be directly stored in newServiceUrls.

Checklist

  • Make sure there is a GitHub_issue field for the change.
  • Write a pull request description that is detailed enough to understand what the pull request does, how, and why.
  • Write necessary unit-test to verify your logic correction. If the new feature or significant change is committed, please remember to add sample in dubbo samples project.
  • Make sure gitHub actions can pass. Why the workflow is failing and how to fix it?

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Dec 24, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 60.76%. Comparing base (a9e4910) to head (d9cf9d3).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##                3.3   #15014   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     60.76%   60.76%           
+ Complexity    10866    10860    -6     
=========================================
  Files          1882     1882           
  Lines         85983    85977    -6     
  Branches      12876    12876           
=========================================
  Hits          52246    52246           
+ Misses        28289    28285    -4     
+ Partials       5448     5446    -2     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration-tests 32.98% <100.00%> (-0.15%) ⬇️
samples-tests 29.21% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
unit-tests 58.92% <100.00%> (+0.01%) ⬆️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Contributor

@finefuture finefuture left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If this logic is deleted, a lot of unnecessary repeated calculations will be added when the same revision is encountered.

@aruato aruato closed this Dec 25, 2024
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.

3 participants