epugh commented on code in PR #4744:
URL: https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/4744#discussion_r3879983163
##########
solr/modules/cross-dc/src/test/org/apache/solr/crossdc/update/processor/MirroringUpdateProcessorTest.java:
##########
@@ -544,7 +544,7 @@ UpdateRequest createMirrorRequest() {
processor.processDelete(deleteUpdateCommand);
verify(requestMirroringHandler, times(1)).mirror(updateRequest);
assertEquals("missing dbq", 1, updateRequest.getDeleteQuery().size());
- assertEquals("dbq value", "id:test*",
updateRequest.getDeleteQuery().get(0));
+ assertEquals("dbq value", "id:test*",
updateRequest.getDeleteQuery().getFirst());
Review Comment:
so I stayed away from that whole "can be final" and "can be local", mostly
because I don't have the confidence of my convications that it IS the right
change. It probably is, IntelliJ knows more than I do about Java syntax and
keywords ;-). I was really focused on what I thought were the simplest
cleanups cause I didn't want to create some weird lowlevel bug or race
condition by changing attribute defintions.
Having said that, dealing with "field can be convert to a local variable" is
prbably something that SHOULD be done in a seperate PR.
--
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.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
