Skip to content
Draft
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -96,6 +96,11 @@ public static VectorizationProvider getInstance() {
Holder.INSTANCE, "call to getInstance() from subclass of VectorizationProvider");
}

/** Returns the name of the {@code VectorizationProvider}'s implementation that's being used. */
public static String getImplementationName() {
return Objects.requireNonNull(Holder.INSTANCE).getName();
}

VectorizationProvider() {
// no instance/subclass except from this package
}
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -224,6 +229,10 @@ private static void ensureCaller() {
}
}

public String getName() {
return this.getClass().getSimpleName();
}

/** This static holder class prevents classloading deadlock. */
private static final class Holder {
private Holder() {}
Expand Down
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -24,6 +24,10 @@ public void testCallerOfGetter() {
expectThrows(UnsupportedOperationException.class, TestVectorizationProvider::illegalCaller);
}

public void testGetProviderName() {
assertEquals("DefaultVectorizationProvider", VectorizationProvider.getImplementationName());
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

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?

}

private static void illegalCaller() {
VectorizationProvider.getInstance();
}
Expand Down
Loading