mbeckerle commented on a change in pull request #273: WIP: Add User Defined
Functions Capability
URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/pull/273#discussion_r334642164
##########
File path:
daffodil-udf/src/test/java/org/badudfs/evaluate/StringFunctions/StringFunctionsProvider.java
##########
@@ -16,26 +16,17 @@
*/
package org.badudfs.evaluate.StringFunctions;
-import org.apache.daffodil.udf.*;
+import org.apache.daffodil.udf.UserDefinedFunctionProvider;
-public class StringFunctionsProvider extends UDFunctionProvider {
- public StringFunctionsProvider() {
- super.setFunctionClasses( new Class<?>[] { FuncA.class,
Replace.class } );
- }
-
- public Object lookupFunctionClass(String namespace, String name) {
- Object functionClass = null;
-
- String nn = String.join("_", namespace, name);
-
- switch (nn) {
- case "com.ext.badudfs.StringFunctions_replace":
- functionClass = new Replace();
- break;
- case "com.ext.badudfs.StringFunctions_funcA":
- functionClass = new FuncA();
- break;
- }
- return functionClass;
- }
+/**
+ * UDF Provider for Negative Unit test
+ *
+ * Contains classes with invalid or missing evaluate functions
+ */
+public class StringFunctionsProvider extends UserDefinedFunctionProvider {
+ @Override
+ public Class<?>[] getUserDefinedFunctionClasses() {
+ // TODO Auto-generated method stub
Review comment:
Wait a sec? Are these auto-generated stubs? I'm used to seeing that with a
print-stack-trace or such, but perhaps these are as generated? In any case the
comments should go. But if these are stubs, why is that ok?
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
With regards,
Apache Git Services
