FrankChen021 commented on pull request #12026:
URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/12026#issuecomment-1056117823
@jihoonson A good suggestion. Let me create a new PR to fix the
vulnerability only and leave this PR to unify the response model.
--
This is an automated message from th
FrankChen021 commented on pull request #12026:
URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/12026#issuecomment-1053806300
@jihoonson Could you review this PR when you're at convenience? I saw there
were conflicts with the latest changes on master, and worried about more
conflicts.
--
This
FrankChen021 commented on pull request #12026:
URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/12026#issuecomment-993076194
CI failed because of insufficient line coverage.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use th
FrankChen021 commented on pull request #12026:
URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/12026#issuecomment-991049721
@kfaraz I added an override version to accept `Object... args` parameters to
simplify. And also I added some comments to these functions to give suggestions
that when 400 o
FrankChen021 commented on pull request #12026:
URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/12026#issuecomment-991047526
@jihoonson This patch updates many returning statements, it's hard to add
cases for all these changes.
For the tests:
I added a UT test case to check the retur
FrankChen021 commented on pull request #12026:
URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/12026#issuecomment-988067555
@kfaraz My opinion is that we should use exception-thrown style instead of
returning statement. The reason I keep a `toResponse` function to return a
`Response` object is t
