Sebastian Brudziński

Should we consider logging on the INFO level for our remaining services too?

Should we consider logging on the INFO level for our remaining services too?

Revert "OLMIS-5467 Temporarily changing order for TestDataInitializer"

This reverts commit 657406c9120091ddc47a77f9bd09b7d3cf758e2e.

They are still too weak if for both search cases there is a match for all requisitions. We need to verify whether the search works correctly, which means whether a correct subset of requisitions is...

They are still too weak if for both search cases there is a match for all requisitions. We need to verify whether the search works correctly, which means whether a correct subset of requisitions is returned. This implies we need requisition with a various modified date set.

OLMIS-5467 Temporarily changing order for TestDataInitializer

Just checking what happens if I do this...

Alright

Alright

It looks like currently only one case is covered: both from and to dates are set, moreover, they are the same. We should cover other cases we are supporting too.

It looks like currently only one case is covered: both from and to dates are set, moreover, they are the same. We should cover other cases we are supporting too.

I wonder why we can't simply test for an exact modified date match (by query params passed, we should get an exact date, since from and to are the same)

I wonder why we can't simply test for an exact modified date match (by query params passed, we should get an exact date, since from and to are the same)

Why is this method param called "key"?

Why is this method param called "key"?

Any reason for using different naming convention than with initiated date?

Any reason for using different naming convention than with initiated date?

Those two methods could be reduced to one line return (optional)

Those two methods could be reduced to one line return (optional)

Can you fix those variable names to indicate they work with modified date?

Can you fix those variable names to indicate they work with modified date?

Can you fix those variable names to indicate they work with initiated date?

Can you fix those variable names to indicate they work with initiated date?

What exactly are you trying to test here?

What exactly are you trying to test here?

OLMIS-5445 Move version assignment further up in database migration
OLMIS-5445 Move version assignment further up in database migration
OLMIS-5445 Move version assignment further up in database migration

OLMIS-5445 Modify order of statements in Orderables migration
OLMIS-5445 Modify order of statements in Orderables migration
OLMIS-5445 Modify order of statements in Orderables migration

OLMIS-5445 Modify order of statements in Orderables migration

What about database migrations? I thought that editing jrxml files is not enough to have the report updated.

What about database migrations? I thought that editing jrxml files is not enough to have the report updated.

Still doesn't seem correct or I'm missing something. Where are we setting the value for avg consumption column? I only see setting value for total consumed quantity. Only the returned value seems t...

Still doesn't seem correct or I'm missing something. Where are we setting the value for avg consumption column? I only see setting value for total consumed quantity. Only the returned value seems to be the average consumption. Let me know if I'm wrong.

There should be other tests that invoke the constructor when testing the actual logic. We should not test constructors ourselves - this makes no sense and doesn't test anything.

There should be other tests that invoke the constructor when testing the actual logic. We should not test constructors ourselves - this makes no sense and doesn't test anything.

Why are we testing a constructor..?

Why are we testing a constructor..?

probably makes sense to mark them final

probably makes sense to mark them final

doesn't seem correct

doesn't seem correct