Add a getImplementationName method to VectorizationProvider that returns the name of the selected implementation #15294
+13
−0
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
…rns the name of the selected implementation
msokolov
reviewed
Oct 7, 2025
| } | ||
|
|
||
| public void testGetProviderName() { | ||
| assertEquals("DefaultVectorizationProvider", VectorizationProvider.getImplementationName()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is all makes sense to me, but I'm wondering under what circumstances we would have an alternate provider and whether we can test that. Is that something that only happens in the MRJAR code? If that's right, do we have MRJAR-specific tests where we could test that this also works when we have a non-default provider?
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
This draft is a possible solution for #15292. I implemented the
getName()as the simple class name, but could also be just a string that represents the class, likedefault/panama.With this new method, the initialization of the
Holder.INSTANCEcould happen from a caller that's not in theVALID_CALLERS. It would not be returned though, I'm not sure if that's a problem. getInstance would still require valid callers.An alternative approach could be to refactor the
lookupmethod in a way that thegetImplementationNamecould use to determine the implementation without actually initializing it.