Add unit test for PipelineJobCenter

[HarshSawarkar]

Fixes #28542 .

Changes proposed in this pull request:

Added unit tests for PipelineJobCenter to test its public functions to improve unit test coverage. Methods: addJob, isJobExisting, getJob, getJobItemContext, getShardingItems.

Before committing this PR, I'm sure that I have checked the following options:

• My code follows the code of conduct of this project.
• I have self-reviewed the commit code.
• I have (or in comment I request) added corresponding labels for the pull request.
• I have passed maven check locally : ./mvnw clean install -B -T1C -Dmaven.javadoc.skip -Dmaven.jacoco.skip -e.
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation.
• I have added corresponding unit tests for my changes.

[HarshSawarkar]

Hi @zhaojinchao95 Please can you guide me with these checks

1. CI / CI - Compile by JDK 11 and Run on JDK 8 (pull_request)
2. Required - Check / Check - CheckStyle (pull_request)
3. Required - Check / Check - Spotless (pull_request)
4. Required - Check / Check - License (pull_request)

I have followed all the guidelines to setup and run the project locally.There are some issues in pom.xml file which I tried to resolve but no luck!

Here are some snapshots of the error I am facing

A similar issue was there for YAMLEnginetest.assertMarshal but i resovled it

Has anyone faced the same issue above??? Please guide.

[sandynz]

Hi @HarshSawarkar , about newline related errors, you could ignore it for now, we'll try to fix it. Thanks for your feedback.

About GitHub CI errors:

CI / CI - Compile by JDK 11 and Run on JDK 8 (pull_request)

There's an error of PipelineJobCenterTest, you could run on local machine to test and fix it:

Error:  org.apache.shardingsphere.data.pipeline.core.job.PipelineJobCenterTest.getJobItemContext -- Time elapsed: 0.157 s <<< FAILURE!
org.opentest4j.AssertionFailedError: expected: <Mock for PipelineJobItemContext, hashCode: 1250956357> but was: <Optional[Mock for PipelineJobItemContext, hashCode: 1250956357]>
	at org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertionFailureBuilder.build(AssertionFailureBuilder.java:151)
	at org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertionFailureBuilder.buildAndThrow(AssertionFailureBuilder.java:132)
	at org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertEquals.failNotEqual(AssertEquals.java:197)
	at org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertEquals.assertEquals(AssertEquals.java:182)
	at org.junit.jupiter.api.AssertEquals.assertEquals(AssertEquals.java:177)
	at org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.assertEquals(Assertions.java:1141)
	at org.apache.shardingsphere.data.pipeline.core.job.PipelineJobCenterTest.getJobItemContext(PipelineJobCenterTest.java:57)

Required - Check / Check - CheckStyle (pull_request)

These ones is caused by checkstyle, you could follow Code of Conduct:

If using IDEA, you can import the recommended src/resources/code-style-idea.xml

And then format your code.

Required - Check / Check - Spotless (pull_request)

You could follow Code of Conduct:

Through the uniform code style of spotless, execute the ./mvnw spotless:apply -Pcheck formatted code.

Required - Check / Check - License (pull_request)

You could copy a license header from another java file and add it into PipelineJobCenterTest.java.

Other suggestions will be commented on PR review.

[HarshSawarkar]

Thanks @sandynz for your response,will look into it.

[HarshSawarkar]

Hey @sandynz I have made the changes to the code.Can you please review it?

[HarshSawarkar]

Hi @sandynz I have made the changes.Can you please review it again?

[sandynz]

Hi @sandynz I have made the changes.Can you please review it again?

Hi @HarshSawarkar , there's checkstyle error in CI, you could follow error details in Check - CheckStyle to fix it.

If you've installed CheckStyle plugin in IDE, then you could verify it on your local machine.

[HarshSawarkar]

Hey @sandynz

Hi @sandynz I have made the changes.Can you please review it again?

Hi @HarshSawarkar , there's checkstyle error in CI, you could follow error details in Check - CheckStyle to fix it.

If you've installed CheckStyle plugin in IDE, then you could verify it on your local machine.

Thanks for your response.I am looking into it.

[HarshSawarkar]

Can you please review it again @sandynz ?

[sandynz]

Can you please review it again @sandynz ?

Nice. Merged

[HarshSawarkar]

@sandynz Thanks for your support , looking forward to work on more issues.