AER-3873 - Make heat content validation more specific #353
Conversation
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
Added a new method to validate heat content based on its type, ensuring that for non-forced heat content types, the heat content is present and falls within the defined limits. Removed the previous min/max annotations from the getHeatContent method to streamline validation logic.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This change is actually somewhat debatable; the previous implementation was simpler and arguably more robust, however strictly speaking it was too broad by also validating the heat content when the heat content type is set to FORCED (in which case heat content is not used, but the outflow values are).
The implementation in this PR makes the validation assert precisely the valid/invalid conditions, although on the surface it is slightly more complex.
Of note: the check is inclusive,
@Minand@Maxwas also inclusive, despite the previous message stating it as exclusiveThe
@JsonIgnoreis to keep the json response from being altered