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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
API-34957 v1 error formatter update #16197
API-34957 v1 error formatter update #16197
Changes from all commits
bba4ed4
f16899f
57e759d
af8535f
fb1d603
cd3257a
fa55a47
63a9253
cc38a17
755c163
c90a3e0
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this is redundant logic. we can just pass
e.original_body
to line :34 and get the same result.actually this throws an error in the validate. without the
:messages
.if we pass the original body we can just change the
claim_establisher
to recordevss_response = e.messages
. unless you saw a differing format in the submit call?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@FonzMP Good catch. I think there is a different format in the
claims_controller
. I think the fix might actually be to remove the lineerror_details = e&.original_body&.[](:messages)
in the V1disability_compensation_controller
. This was added when building the V2 validate service because of the different format from the docker container. I think the current update renders this unnecessary now. The error here and in the V1claims_controller
should be in the same format I believe, so not having:messages
over there (v1 claims_controller formatter ) would mean we no longer want to account for it over here too I suspect. Thoughts?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
still don't know if I'm quite following because the docker response is the same for v1 and v2. no formatting has been changed. plus the below logic for
error_details
just extracts the:messages
we get from the container? Anywho, it behaves in the same manner, so 🤷There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think I see where you're driving that.. it's because of the loss of the ability to call
e.messages
from the former error.Service Exception being raised
Error class
parent giving us the goods
this structure essentially extracted one level out... hence the use of
e.messages