Skip to content

Align XML and Java based configuration #491

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

mdeinum
Copy link
Contributor

@mdeinum mdeinum commented Jun 22, 2017

This commit aligns the XML and Java based validations.

When using XML to configure a chunk oriented step both an ItemReader and
ItemWriter are requied. However when using Java based configuration the
ItemWriter is optional if an ItemProcessor is present.

Having no ItemWriter and only an ItemProcessor lead to strange results
in one of our batch jobs, which was accidentily configured without an
ItemProcessor.

Related: BATCH-1520
Fixes: BATCH-2624

@mminella mminella self-assigned this Jul 17, 2017
@fmbenhassine
Copy link
Contributor

@mdeinum Could you please rebase your PR on the latest master branch and update the year to 2018 in the license header?

Could you also add a test that expects an IllegalStateException when the writer is null? This test is necessary to validate that the item writer is mandatory.

Thanks in advance.

This commit aligns the XML and Java based validations.

When using XML to configure a chunk oriented step both an ItemReader and
ItemWriter are requied. However when using Java based configuration the
ItemWriter is optional if an ItemProcessor is present.

Having no ItemWriter and only an ItemProcessor lead to strange results
in one of our batch jobs, which was accidentily configured without an
ItemProcessor.

Related: BATCH-1520
Fixes: BATCH-2624
@fmbenhassine
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM. rebased and merged as 3ccc4ff .

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants