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

Issue #97 ServletHolder unavailable handling #4083

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 13, 2019

Conversation

gregw
Copy link
Contributor

@gregw gregw commented Sep 12, 2019

#97
Took the opportunity to do a major cleanup of the Holders.
ServletHolder now uses wrapping to achieve optional behaviour rather than lots of if statements.

Signed-off-by: Greg Wilkins gregw@webtide.com

Took the opportunity to do a major cleanup of the Holders.
ServletHolder now uses wrapping to achieve optional behaviour rather than lots of if statements.

Signed-off-by: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
Copy link
Contributor

@joakime joakime left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't see test cases for the destroy on Filter / Servlet, do we have these somewhere else?

@gregw
Copy link
Contributor Author

gregw commented Sep 12, 2019

@joakime the new testCases added to testErrorPage do test that destroy is called in the scenario that #97 is about. I agree that there is a bit of a lack of other tests to ensure that destroy is called for other components... in fact I think that in many cases it wasn't. Let me add one....

Added test for servlet component lifecycle
Fixed bug where we were destroying listeners before calling them.

Signed-off-by: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
@gregw
Copy link
Contributor Author

gregw commented Sep 13, 2019

@joakime added a test - which was worthwhile as I found a bug that we are destroying listeners before calling contextDestroyed event!

@gregw gregw requested a review from joakime September 13, 2019 01:41
Copy link
Contributor

@joakime joakime left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

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.

2 participants