Skip to content

Fix runtime return type backward compatibility #5306

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 4, 2022

Conversation

upgle
Copy link
Member

@upgle upgle commented Aug 3, 2022

Description

Some downstream runtimes may not support the array return type.
(This also happens when using a legacy action loop base.)

In this case, test case will fail and you will be inconvenient for maintaining.
I think it is should be preserved backward compatibility.

Related issue and scope

#5290

My changes affect the following components

  • Tests

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (generally a non-breaking change which closes an issue).
  • Enhancement or new feature (adds new functionality).
  • Breaking change (a bug fix or enhancement which changes existing behavior).

Checklist:

  • I signed an Apache CLA.
  • I reviewed the style guides and followed the recommendations (Travis CI will check :).
  • I added tests to cover my changes.
  • My changes require further changes to the documentation.
  • I updated the documentation where necessary.

@upgle upgle requested a review from ningyougang August 3, 2022 09:35
@ningyougang
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM

@upgle upgle changed the title Fix runtime return type's backward compatibility Fix runtime return type backward compatibility Aug 3, 2022
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Aug 3, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #5306 (e74dadd) into master (2683ed1) will increase coverage by 4.70%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #5306      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   71.46%   76.16%   +4.70%     
==========================================
  Files         238      238              
  Lines       14183    14178       -5     
  Branches      574      579       +5     
==========================================
+ Hits        10136    10799     +663     
+ Misses       4047     3379     -668     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
...core/database/cosmosdb/RxObservableImplicits.scala 0.00% <0.00%> (-100.00%) ⬇️
...ore/database/cosmosdb/cache/CacheInvalidator.scala 0.00% <0.00%> (-100.00%) ⬇️
...e/database/cosmosdb/cache/ChangeFeedConsumer.scala 0.00% <0.00%> (-100.00%) ⬇️
...core/database/cosmosdb/CosmosDBArtifactStore.scala 0.00% <0.00%> (-95.85%) ⬇️
...sk/core/database/cosmosdb/CosmosDBViewMapper.scala 0.00% <0.00%> (-93.90%) ⬇️
...tabase/cosmosdb/cache/CacheInvalidatorConfig.scala 0.00% <0.00%> (-92.31%) ⬇️
...enwhisk/connector/kafka/KamonMetricsReporter.scala 0.00% <0.00%> (-83.34%) ⬇️
...e/database/cosmosdb/cache/KafkaEventProducer.scala 0.00% <0.00%> (-78.58%) ⬇️
...whisk/core/database/cosmosdb/CosmosDBSupport.scala 0.00% <0.00%> (-74.08%) ⬇️
...ore/database/azblob/AzureBlobAttachmentStore.scala 11.53% <0.00%> (-60.58%) ⬇️
... and 33 more

📣 Codecov can now indicate which changes are the most critical in Pull Requests. Learn more

@upgle upgle merged commit 1a0f1ce into apache:master Aug 4, 2022
msciabarra pushed a commit to nuvolaris/openwhisk that referenced this pull request Nov 23, 2022
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.

4 participants