Backport to branch(3) : Refactor client CLIs #337
Conversation
Summary of ChangesHello @feeblefakie, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request implements a significant refactoring of the client-side Command Line Interface (CLI) tools. The primary goal is to enhance code maintainability and reduce redundancy by introducing abstract base classes for both general client commands and table store-specific commands. This change centralizes the common patterns of client service instantiation, configuration management, and robust exception handling, allowing individual command implementations to focus solely on their specific business logic. The refactoring also includes minor improvements to error reporting and file handling mechanisms. Highlights
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces a solid refactoring by creating abstract base classes for CLI commands, which significantly reduces code duplication and centralizes common logic like service creation and exception handling. This improves the overall maintainability of the client tools. The changes are well-implemented, and the tests have been updated accordingly. I have a couple of suggestions to further reduce code duplication.
| if (!failed.isEmpty()) { | ||
| try (OutputStreamWriter fileWriter = | ||
| new OutputStreamWriter( | ||
| new FileOutputStream(REGISTRATION_FAILED_CONTRACTS_TOML_FILE), | ||
| Files.newOutputStream(Paths.get(REGISTRATION_FAILED_CONTRACTS_TOML_FILE)), | ||
| StandardCharsets.UTF_8)) { | ||
| TomlWriter tomlWriter = new TomlWriter(); | ||
|
|
||
| for (Toml toml : failed) { | ||
| fileWriter.write(String.format("[[%s]]%n", TOML_TABLES_NAME)); | ||
| tomlWriter.write(toml.toMap(), fileWriter); | ||
| } | ||
| } catch (IOException e) { | ||
| throw new ClientException(ClientError.WRITING_RESULT_TO_FILE_FAILED, e, e.getMessage()); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The logic for writing the list of failed Toml objects to a file is very similar to the one in FunctionsRegistration.java. To improve maintainability and reduce code duplication, you could extract this logic into a common utility method. For example, a static method in the Common class could be created and called from both places.
| if (!failed.isEmpty()) { | ||
| try (OutputStreamWriter fileWriter = | ||
| new OutputStreamWriter( | ||
| new FileOutputStream(REGISTRATION_FAILED_FUNCTIONS_TOML_FILE), | ||
| Files.newOutputStream(Paths.get(REGISTRATION_FAILED_FUNCTIONS_TOML_FILE)), | ||
| StandardCharsets.UTF_8)) { | ||
| TomlWriter tomlWriter = new TomlWriter(); | ||
|
|
||
| for (Toml toml : failed) { | ||
| fileWriter.write(String.format("[[%s]]%n", TOML_TABLES_NAME)); | ||
| tomlWriter.write(toml.toMap(), fileWriter); | ||
| } | ||
| } catch (IOException e) { | ||
| throw new ClientException(ClientError.WRITING_RESULT_TO_FILE_FAILED, e, e.getMessage()); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The logic for writing the list of failed Toml objects to a file is very similar to the one in ContractsRegistration.java. To improve maintainability and reduce code duplication, you could extract this logic into a common utility method. For example, a static method in the Common class could be created and called from both places.
2 participants
This is an automated backport of the following:
Please merge this PR after all checks have passed.