Feature/forward final #69
Conversation
|
| // functions would make it less comprehensible | ||
| } | ||
| ) | ||
| @SuppressWarnings("java:S3776") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The warning identifiers are rather opaque without comments.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe throwing an exception that explains the problem more clearly than "No value present" would be a good idea? The stacktrace helps but in cases where only the message makes it through it could stand to be more helpful. Not sure if it would be worth the effort though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wouldn't it make more sense to put the CV output in a subclass instead of having it activated by setting an Optional?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A static variable controlling matchers for all unit tests seems like a good way to end up with some really annoying test order dependant failures.
| // BGRPFIND (Breakage uses decay BEC) | ||
| var breakageGroup = breakageGroupMap.get(genus, bec.getDecayBec().getAlias()); | ||
| try { | ||
| // DGRPFIND |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wouldn't it make more sense to have these methods on the resolved control map return an optional instead of having them throw an exception you catch here?
Changes resulting from end-to-end testing of VDYP 7.9.