----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/50202/#review142917 -----------------------------------------------------------
core/src/main/java/org/apache/oozie/workflow/lite/LiteWorkflowValidator.java (line 61) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/50202/#comment208592> I think it would be a good idea to use equals() method instead of reference comparison (!= or ==). core/src/main/java/org/apache/oozie/workflow/lite/LiteWorkflowValidator.java (line 123) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/50202/#comment208591> [minor] This null check seems to be redundant. While parsing the workflow. core/src/main/java/org/apache/oozie/workflow/lite/LiteWorkflowValidator.java (line 127) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/50202/#comment208589> [minor]This seems redundant to me. We are doing this check while pasrsing the workflow. [LiteWorkflowApp#addNode] In case, we would like to keep the check, it would be good to repleace the (==) with String#equals() method. - Abhishek Bafna On July 19, 2016, 7:56 p.m., Peter Bacsko wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/50202/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 19, 2016, 7:56 p.m.) > > > Review request for oozie. > > > Bugs: OOZIE-1978 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OOZIE-1978 > > > Repository: oozie-git > > > Description > ------- > > See OOZIE-1978 for details. > > > Diffs > ----- > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/oozie/ErrorCode.java 2907ca2 > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/oozie/workflow/lite/LiteWorkflowAppParser.java > a1b9cdb > > core/src/main/java/org/apache/oozie/workflow/lite/LiteWorkflowValidator.java > PRE-CREATION > core/src/test/java/org/apache/oozie/command/wf/TestSubmitXCommand.java > 73464c8 > > core/src/test/java/org/apache/oozie/workflow/lite/TestLiteWorkflowAppParser.java > 9002b6c > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/50202/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Existing tests pass. > > We might need to add some more, at least testing acyclic graph detection. > > > Thanks, > > Peter Bacsko > >
