quality-check | small Java library for basic runtime code quality checks | Code Analyzer library

Please note that the blog post is quite old, have you verified your assumption that it does not work with SuccessFactors API?

Nonetheless, we recently introduced a configuration option which allows you to disable certain checks, cf https://github.com/SAP/cloud-s4-sdk-pipeline/blob/master/configuration.md#s4sdkqualitychecks

checkServices is what you would want to disable in your scenario.

You need to define these two variables outside for loop:

I have tried it, and it works fine with your code.

There's no problem with equality in the method toContain.

Have you changed const routes to export const routes in your app-routing.module.ts, and import { routes } from './app-routing.module' in your test?

It's the only thing that I had to change in order to test the app.

I have done the following steps:

• ng new test-routing (saying yes to routing so the app-routing.module.ts is created.
• Modified app.component.spec.ts with the following code:

This is reported as an issue in the Visual Studio Developer Community. https://developercommunity.visualstudio.com/content/problem/22907/please-support-tslint-as-how-its-supported-in-vs-c.html

The status is "triaged", so I assume that a comparable feature is not (yet) available. You may want to upvote the issue, so that it gets more attention by the VS development team.

EDIT: As noted in the following question, the visual studio plugin web analyzer provides support for tslint in VS 2015 (but not VS 2017):

Set up TSLint for VS2017

Scala's scala.Double does not correspond to Java's java.lang.Double. Scala's double inherits from AnyVal, the parent of all value types. It most closely corresponds to the primitive type double in Java, which can't be null. When you do null.asInstanceOf[Double], you're actually getting the double value 0.0, not a null double.

From the Scala language specification section 6.3

[the null value] implements methods in scala.AnyRef as follows

...

• asInstanceOf[T] returns the default value of type T

And the default value of Double is zero.

So, in short, your value can't possibly be null because it's like a Java primitive. So you don't need to do a null check in this case.

I think your solution will depend on what is important to you;

• The monetary cost of your operation
• Latency between data hitting your staging table and being available in the main table
• Simplicity

BatchWriteItem consumes the same number of write capacity units as PutItem and UpdateItem, so the monetary cost is the same.

BatchWriteItem should reduce latency between your staging table and main table (compared to PutItem or UpdateItem), but it comes at the cost of simplicity as you cannot have more than 25 items in your batch, each item cannot be more then 400KB, and the total batch cannot be more than 16MB. So you have a little more code to write. If you are hitting these limits you can create smaller batches, or consider writing your own parallel threading model with PutItem or UpdateItem.

You can potentially decrease latency by increasing your table RCUs and WCUs. You would need to optimise these for your particular operation between the two tables.

Minimising your writing time is only likely to be important if it is significant compared to your read/analysis time though. If it takes one minute to do your Scan and one second to do subsequent writes with UpdateItem, there is very little point in using batchwriteitem.

I would suggest you will see little or no difference between PutItem or UpdateItem. They consume the same number of WCUs so assuming you are throughput limited, there will be no difference.

One thing to consider is that Scan is not read consistent by default, meaning the table may change between the start and end of the Scan. Depending on your quality scans, you may want to set ConsistentRead to true.

I think ideally you would prototype the process using the most simple approach, and then analyse the solution to see which bits take significant time. You can then look to optimise those parts of the process.

Your surefire plugin configuration indicates that you would be choosing both the suite file and also the set of tests ( tags) at run time via JVM arguments.

testnames ${testname}

Please ensure that you pass a valid value to the set of tags via the JVM argument -Dtestnames.