tpalfy commented on a change in pull request #3646: NIFI-6546 - Add JsonPath
set value support
URL: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/3646#discussion_r317960818
##########
File path:
nifi-commons/nifi-expression-language/src/test/java/org/apache/nifi/attribute/expression/language/TestQuery.java
##########
@@ -336,17 +345,20 @@ public void testJsonPath() throws IOException {
}
}
- private void verifyCommonAddressBookAttributes(Map<String,String>
attributes, String skipCheck) {
- if (! ADDRESS_BOOK_JSON_PATH_FIRST_NAME.equals(skipCheck) )
- verifyEquals(ADDRESS_BOOK_JSON_PATH_FIRST_NAME, attributes,
"John");
- if (! ADDRESS_BOOK_JSON_PATH_LAST_NAME.equals(skipCheck) )
- verifyEquals(ADDRESS_BOOK_JSON_PATH_LAST_NAME, attributes,
"Smith");
- if (! ADDRESS_BOOK_JSON_PATH_AGE.equals(skipCheck) )
- verifyEquals(ADDRESS_BOOK_JSON_PATH_AGE, attributes, "25");
- if (! ADDRESS_BOOK_JSON_PATH_VOTER.equals(skipCheck) )
- verifyEquals(ADDRESS_BOOK_JSON_PATH_VOTER, attributes, "true");
- if (! ADDRESS_BOOK_JSON_PATH_ADDRESS_POSTAL_CODE.equals(skipCheck) )
- verifyEquals(ADDRESS_BOOK_JSON_PATH_ADDRESS_POSTAL_CODE,
attributes, "10021-3100");
+ private void verifyAddressBookAttributes(String originalAddressBook,
Map<String,String> attributes, String updatedAttribute, Object updatedValue,
boolean verifyBothPhones) {
+
+ Map<String, String> originalAttributes = new HashMap<>();
+ originalAttributes.put("json", originalAddressBook);
+
+ phoneBookAttributes.stream()
+ .filter(currentAttribute ->
!currentAttribute.equals(updatedAttribute))
+ .forEach(currentAttribute -> {
+ String expected =
Query.evaluateExpressions(currentAttribute, originalAttributes, null, null,
ParameterLookup.EMPTY);
+ verifyEquals(currentAttribute, attributes,
expected);
+ }
+ );
+ if ( verifyBothPhones )
Review comment:
`phoneBookAttribute` already covers both phones,
`ADDRESS_BOOK_JSON_PATH_PHONE_NUMBERS_TYPE_HOME_NUMBER` and
`ADDRESS_BOOK_JSON_PATH_PHONE_NUMBERS_TYPE_OFFICE_NUMBER` are already in the
list! I feel like that they are treated as special for some reason but I don't
see why we still need this separate and redundant check?
----------------------------------------------------------------
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
