-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 108
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Remove unused code from cadence.internal package #921
Conversation
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 2542Details
💛 - Coveralls |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm unsure if we want to delete this, but I could not find usages of this in monorepos or in open sourced usages.
@@ -621,26 +437,6 @@ public static GetWorkflowExecutionHistoryResponse getHistoryPage( | |||
return history; | |||
} | |||
|
|||
/** Returns workflow instance history in a human readable format. */ | |||
public static String prettyPrintHistory( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This could be useful; I wonder why have you decided to drop this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it's potentially useful but it's long unused and untested. If we need similar functionality we can rewrite it.
* @param <R> activity return type | ||
* @return activity result | ||
*/ | ||
public static <R> R executeActivity( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wonder why is this removed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not really sure why this exists, it's long unused and untested. I think it's best we just remove it.
d895c5f
to
3fdf3d6
Compare
What changed?
Remove unused code from internal packages to improve code coverage and reduce maintenance burden. Users shouldn't be accessing internals.
Why?
Improving code coverage and reducing maintenance burden
How did you test it?
Unit tests
Potential risks
User code may be accessing internals within the client and could break. Generally this should be a compile time breakage and we do not support accessing internals.
Release notes
Documentation Changes