fix: SerializationException: Type 'org.ovirt.engine.core.common.utils.SecretValue' was not included in the set of types... #900 #956
Conversation
This file contains 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
##Fixes issue This PR fixes the oVirt#900 issue. ##Changes introduced with this PR Since the SecretValue structure is used in GWT, it should implement Serializable interface. Also couple null checks were added to avoid NPE in the scenario explained in the oVirt#900 issue. ##Are you the owner of the code you are sending in, or do you have permission of the owner? Yes
sermakov-orion
requested review from
sgratch,
ahadas,
bennyz,
emesika,
mwperina,
michalskrivanek,
smelamud and
didib
as code owners
|
Requesting Reviews. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes issue
This PR fixes the #900 issue.
Changes introduced with this PR
Since the SecretValue structure is used in GWT, it should implement Serializable interface. Also couple null checks were added to avoid NPE in the scenario explained in the #900 issue.
Are you the owner of the code you are sending in, or do you have permission of the owner?
Yes