fix(QTDI-2954): fix possible NPE in VaultClient - #1230
Open
undx wants to merge 10 commits into
Open
Conversation
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR addresses a possible null response handling issue in VaultClient.throwError(Throwable) by preserving the configured fallback status when a WebApplicationException has no Response.
Changes:
- Moves
response.getStatus()inside the existing null check inthrowError(Throwable). - Adds a unit test that invokes
throwError(Throwable)with aWebApplicationExceptionwhose response is null.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
vault-client/src/main/java/org/talend/sdk/components/vault/client/VaultClient.java |
Makes throwError(Throwable) avoid dereferencing a null JAX-RS response. |
vault-client/src/test/java/org/talend/sdk/components/vault/client/VaultClientTest.java |
Adds regression coverage for null response handling in throwError(Throwable). |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
Co-authored-by: Copilot Autofix powered by AI <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
# Conflicts: # vault-client/src/main/java/org/talend/sdk/components/vault/client/VaultClient.java # vault-client/src/test/java/org/talend/sdk/components/vault/client/VaultClientTest.java
ozhelezniak-talend
previously approved these changes
Jul 9, 2026
ozhelezniak-talend
left a comment
ozhelezniak-talend
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
okay
Could we rewrite the tests to not call private methods as units?
Maybe we can do component-test instead?
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| // Must not NPE, and must allow the retry loop to keep running (true = retry). | ||
| assertTrue(((Predicate<Throwable>) f.get(vaultClient)).test(waeWithoutResponse)); |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can it be assertEquals?
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The result is the same with assertEquals and is more expressive with a predicate.
Any reason to prefer?
|
ozhelezniak-talend
approved these changes
Aug 7, 2026
This file contains hidden or 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.
https://qlik-dev.atlassian.net/browse/QTDI-2954
Requirements
Why this PR is needed?
What does this PR adds (design/code thoughts)?
AI generated code
https://internal.qlik.dev/general/ways-of-working/code-reviews/#guidelines-for-ai-generated-code