Skip to content

refactor: extract magic number 0L to constant for new entity check #3337

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

Conversation

currenjin
Copy link

@currenjin currenjin commented Jul 30, 2025

Motivation

Replaced the hardcoded value 0L with a named constant to clarify its meaning as a marker for new (unsaved) entities.

Even though the value was only used in a single location, extracting it improves code readability and prevents potential misuse.

Changes

  • Introduced a private static final constant NEW_ID = 0L
  • Replaced inline 0L usage in new entity check

Checklists

  • You have read the Spring Data contribution guidelines.
  • You use the code formatters provided here and have them applied to your changes. Don’t submit any formatting related changes.
  • You submit test cases (unit or integration tests) that back your changes.
  • You added yourself as author in the headers of the classes you touched. Amend the date range in the Apache license header if needed. For new types, add the license header (copy from another file and set the current year only).

Signed-off-by: currenjin <hyun0524e@naver.com>
@spring-projects-issues spring-projects-issues added the status: waiting-for-triage An issue we've not yet triaged label Jul 30, 2025
@currenjin currenjin force-pushed the refactor/extract-magic-number branch from a32a0e5 to 3fc7462 Compare July 30, 2025 10:42
@mp911de
Copy link
Member

mp911de commented Aug 4, 2025

Thank you for your contribution. I'm not quite sure this is appropriate. We would have to add another constant for null if the identifier is an object type and not an primitive to reflect the entire story. Introducing constants isn't helpful as it doesn't help in explaining the concept. Also, we have other places (like IsNewStrategy) that follow a similar behavior.

Therefore, we do not want to merge this PR.

@mp911de mp911de closed this Aug 4, 2025
@mp911de mp911de added status: declined A suggestion or change that we don't feel we should currently apply and removed status: waiting-for-triage An issue we've not yet triaged labels Aug 4, 2025
@currenjin currenjin deleted the refactor/extract-magic-number branch August 4, 2025 07:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
status: declined A suggestion or change that we don't feel we should currently apply
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants