Skip to content

Conversation

zrlw
Copy link
Contributor

@zrlw zrlw commented Sep 26, 2025

What is the purpose of the change?

Since dubbo-spring-boot-autoconfigure-compatible was provided to support springboot 1.x, maybe adding a dubbo springboot3 dependency checker is not redundant, especially for those customers who want enable servlet for triple but encounter with UNIMPLEMENTED : invalid content-type: application/json triple rpc protocol exception, not all customers are familiar with the url of Dubbo's FAQ.

Checklist

  • Make sure there is a GitHub_issue field for the change.
  • Write a pull request description that is detailed enough to understand what the pull request does, how, and why.
  • Write necessary unit-test to verify your logic correction. If the new feature or significant change is committed, please remember to add sample in dubbo samples project.
  • Make sure gitHub actions can pass. Why the workflow is failing and how to fix it?

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Sep 26, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 37.50000% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 61.02%. Comparing base (a7b641f) to head (c9db45c).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...boSpringBoot3DependencyCheckAutoConfiguration.java 20.00% 4 Missing ⚠️
...pring/boot/autoconfigure/SpringBoot3Condition.java 66.66% 0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##                3.3   #15709   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     61.02%   61.02%           
- Complexity    11685    11698   +13     
=========================================
  Files          1923     1924    +1     
  Lines         87081    87086    +5     
  Branches      13115    13115           
=========================================
+ Hits          53141    53147    +6     
- Misses        28488    28489    +1     
+ Partials       5452     5450    -2     
Flag Coverage Δ
integration-tests-java21 32.97% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
integration-tests-java8 32.93% <0.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
samples-tests-java21 32.63% <20.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
samples-tests-java8 30.35% <0.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
unit-tests-java11 59.00% <25.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
unit-tests-java17 58.76% <25.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
unit-tests-java21 58.75% <25.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
unit-tests-java8 58.99% <25.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️

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.

Copy link
Contributor

@finefuture finefuture left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

type/discussion Everything related with code discussion or question

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants