Add plan name to deserialized topologies for validation uses #550
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What kind of change does this PR introduce? (Bug fix, feature, docs update, ...)
Modifies the TopicCustomDeserializer to add the plan name to deserialized topics
resolves Add plan name to deserialized topologies #549
What is the current behavior? (You can also link to an open issue here)
The current behavior adds plan configurations to the topic, but loses the original plan name. This results in
Topic.getPlan()always returning nullWhat is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?
This PR modifies the TopicCustomDeserializer to include the plan name in the deserialized topic.
Topics that do not contain a plan continue to use
null, rather than an Optional. This was to maintain backwards compatibility with the current interfaceDoes this PR introduce a breaking change? (What changes might users need to make in their application due to this PR?)
No.
Other information: