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

fix: integrated PBJ error propagation #362

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 26, 2024

Conversation

mattp-swirldslabs
Copy link
Contributor

Description:

Related issue(s):

Fixes PBJ ticket #304

Notes for reviewer:

Checklist

  • Tested (unit, integration, etc.)

@mattp-swirldslabs mattp-swirldslabs added the Bug A error that causes the feature to behave differently than what was expected based on design docs label Nov 25, 2024
@mattp-swirldslabs mattp-swirldslabs self-assigned this Nov 25, 2024
@mattp-swirldslabs mattp-swirldslabs added this to the 0.3.0 milestone Nov 25, 2024
@mattp-swirldslabs mattp-swirldslabs marked this pull request as ready for review November 25, 2024 23:31
@mattp-swirldslabs mattp-swirldslabs requested a review from a team as a code owner November 25, 2024 23:31
AlfredoG87
AlfredoG87 previously approved these changes Nov 25, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@AlfredoG87 AlfredoG87 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, just one small question.

ata-nas
ata-nas previously approved these changes Nov 26, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@ata-nas ata-nas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good, one nit and one question.

…er observers. Added comments

Signed-off-by: Matt Peterson <[email protected]>
Copy link
Contributor

@AlfredoG87 AlfredoG87 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM!

Copy link
Contributor

@ata-nas ata-nas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good @mattp-swirldslabs! Resolved from my side.

@mattp-swirldslabs mattp-swirldslabs merged commit 9bd4a6a into main Nov 26, 2024
13 checks passed
@mattp-swirldslabs mattp-swirldslabs deleted the 00304-exception-handling branch November 26, 2024 15:54
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 26, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.74%. Comparing base (544d983) to head (f3fa1cc).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main     #362      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     97.72%   97.74%   +0.01%     
- Complexity      332      334       +2     
============================================
  Files            69       69              
  Lines          1229     1239      +10     
  Branches         86       86              
============================================
+ Hits           1201     1211      +10     
  Misses           19       19              
  Partials          9        9              
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
...erver/consumer/ConsumerStreamResponseObserver.java 98.48% <100.00%> (+0.37%) ⬆️
...a/block/server/pbj/PbjBlockAccessServiceProxy.java 100.00% <ø> (ø)
...a/block/server/pbj/PbjBlockStreamServiceProxy.java 91.07% <ø> (ø)
...ock/server/producer/ProducerBlockItemObserver.java 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Bug A error that causes the feature to behave differently than what was expected based on design docs
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants