Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 21, 2022. It is now read-only.

Upgrade to jnr-unixsocket 0.18 #918

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 15, 2017
Merged

Upgrade to jnr-unixsocket 0.18 #918

merged 2 commits into from
Nov 15, 2017

Conversation

davidxia
Copy link
Contributor

Use upstream UnixSocket instead of our own ApacheUnixSocket wrapper.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Nov 12, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #918 into master will increase coverage by 0.7%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             master     #918     +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage     66.08%   66.78%   +0.7%     
+ Complexity      771      754     -17     
===========================================
  Files           171      170      -1     
  Lines          3249     3158     -91     
  Branches        372      370      -2     
===========================================
- Hits           2147     2109     -38     
+ Misses          942      892     -50     
+ Partials        160      157      -3

Use upstream UnixSocket instead of our own ApacheUnixSocket wrapper.

closes #726 and #817.
@davidxia davidxia force-pushed the dxia/upgrade-jnr branch 2 times, most recently from fefef9c to 8231422 Compare November 12, 2017 22:30
@davidxia davidxia requested review from mattnworb and caipre November 13, 2017 22:41
@caipre
Copy link
Contributor

caipre commented Nov 14, 2017

I guess the comment is no longer valid re: delaying the socket options?

https://github.com/spotify/docker-client/pull/918/files#diff-a479355e73762bc07b466a285d105088L41

I'm fine with this given that tests pass.

caipre
caipre previously approved these changes Nov 14, 2017
@davidxia
Copy link
Contributor Author

@caipre Yea, I think jnr.unixsocket.UnixSocket does the right thing compared to jnr.unixsocket.UnixSocketChannel, but I haven't dug into it deeply. I just noticed this as well.

Copy link
Member

@mattnworb mattnworb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not too familiar with the API but this seems ok to me overall

@Rule
public ExpectedException exception = ExpectedException.none();

private static UnixConnectionSocketFactory sut;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think this needs to be static when it is reused in all @Tests

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ah yes, changed

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants