Skip to content

Conversation

@kavinkumarks
Copy link
Contributor

What is this PR for?

This fixes when the input json is empty for the clone notebook REST API and for this case the default name will be populated.

What type of PR is it?

Bug Fix

Todos

NA

What is the Jira issue?

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZEPPELIN-1313

How should this be tested?

When the input json is empty for the clone notebook REST API, the response should be 201 with the default name populated.

Screenshots (if appropriate)

Questions:

  • Does the licenses files need update? No
  • Is there breaking changes for older versions? No
  • Does this needs documentation? No

@kavinkumarks
Copy link
Contributor Author

Reopening to trigger the CI build.

@kavinkumarks
Copy link
Contributor Author

Reopening to trigger the CI build.

@kavinkumarks kavinkumarks reopened this Aug 22, 2016
@kavinkumarks
Copy link
Contributor Author

The CI build is green refer to https://travis-ci.org/apache/zeppelin/builds/154093445

Could someone please review this?

if (newNoteName != null) {
newNote.setName(newNoteName);
} else {
newNote.setName("Note " + newNote.getId());
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

just newNote.id()?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Those methods returns the same. I think we need to remove note.id().

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@felixcheung yes we use only note.getId() even in other place like create notebook.
@jongyoul I will remove note.id() with this.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@kavinkumarks note.id() is used widely and it's better to handle with another PR.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@jongyoul I did the changes already with this ticket and running CI build now.Please let me know if I need to revert them.

@felixcheung
Copy link
Member

LGTM

1 similar comment
@jongyoul
Copy link
Member

LGTM

@kavinkumarks kavinkumarks force-pushed the zeppelin-1313-fix-NPE-clone-notebook branch from 3509f1e to 941e13b Compare August 23, 2016 09:24
@jongyoul
Copy link
Member

@kavinkumarks Thanks for the removing the method, but personally, I think we should handle it with another PR. @felixcheung What do you think of it? It looks irrelevant.

@felixcheung
Copy link
Member

I agree, that should be a separate PR/JIRA.

I'm ok with including it now since changes are already made? Is CI passing?

@jongyoul
Copy link
Member

@felixcheung Yeah, @kavinkumarks already did it, thus I also am OK to include it. CI failure is not related to this PR. LGTM

@kavinkumarks
Copy link
Contributor Author

@felixcheung / @jongyoul could you please take care of merging this?

Thanks,
Kavin

@kavinkumarks
Copy link
Contributor Author

@felixcheung / @jongyoul any updates on this?

Thanks,
Kavin

@jongyoul
Copy link
Member

@AhyoungRyu Could you please merge this PR? This will help you

@felixcheung
Copy link
Member

felixcheung commented Aug 31, 2016 via email

@jongyoul
Copy link
Member

@felixcheung I don't have any problem. I'd like to give @AhyoungRyu a chance to merge PR for the first time. :-)

@felixcheung
Copy link
Member

Right, when I say "you" I mean Ahyoung :)

@AhyoungRyu
Copy link
Contributor

@jongyoul @felixcheung Sure. Let me try :D

@asfgit asfgit closed this in 83469be Sep 1, 2016
@kavinkumarks
Copy link
Contributor Author

kavinkumarks commented Sep 1, 2016

Thanks everyone!
-Kavin

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants