DT-853 #64
DT-853 #64
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am missing a validation to ensure the shipper provides the current scenario parameters.
As an example, for the REGULAR_NON_OPERATING_REEFER scenario, the shipper must supply isNonOperatingReefer = false.
I am aware that it was not present prior to your changes, but there is no point in all of these scenarios of the shipper can get a conform respond without actually following the scenario.
| prefix, | ||
| "the isNonOperatingReefer was true" | ||
| ); | ||
| if (!scenarioType.equals(ScenarioType.REGULAR_NON_OPERATING_REEFER)) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I do not understand why you are making this validation conditional on the scenario. The validation here was not intended to be scenario specific.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have created a story to add the scenario based checks DT-897
| generateValidPolUNLocationCode(), | ||
| generateValidPodUNLocationCode()); | ||
| CarrierScenarioParameters carrierScenarioParameters = switch (scenarioType) { | ||
| case REGULAR, REGULAR_SHIPPER_OWNED -> new CarrierScenarioParameters("Example Carrier Service", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I prefer the previous way of providing a service name other this static Example Carrier Service string (applies to more lines than I highlighted)
No description provided.