Skip to content

fix(wow-core): correct contextName and processorName in SimpleCommandAggregate #1802

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 30, 2025

Conversation

Ahoo-Wang
Copy link
Owner

  • Swap contextName and processorName in FunctionInfoData initialization
  • This change ensures that the correct names are used for command processing

…Aggregate

- Swap contextName and processorName in FunctionInfoData initialization
- This change ensures that the correct names are used for command processing

Signed-off-by: Ahoo Wang <ahoowang@qq.com>
@Ahoo-Wang Ahoo-Wang added the enhancement New feature or request label Jul 30, 2025
- RetryableAggregateProcessor: use RetryableAggregateProcessor::class.simpleName!!
- SimpleCommandAggregate: use SimpleCommandAggregate::class.simpleName!!

Signed-off-by: Ahoo Wang <ahoowang@qq.com>
@Ahoo-Wang Ahoo-Wang merged commit 23c14e9 into main Jul 30, 2025
9 of 11 checks passed
@Ahoo-Wang Ahoo-Wang deleted the SimpleCommandAggregate branch July 30, 2025 13:32
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 30, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.23%. Comparing base (fc15419) to head (e486be5).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main    #1802   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     91.23%   91.23%           
  Complexity     3714     3714           
=========================================
  Files           700      700           
  Lines         12798    12798           
  Branches        810      810           
=========================================
  Hits          11676    11676           
  Misses          735      735           
  Partials        387      387           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 91.23% <100.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant