Skip to content
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

refactor: Remove some getters and setters for boot_source #4917

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 25, 2024

Conversation

roypat
Copy link
Contributor

@roypat roypat commented Nov 15, 2024

The initialization code for the boot_source field in build_boot_source had me do a double take when I first saw, with all the setters and getters obscuring what is really happening. Clean this up by simply using a struct initializer, and also remove the getters and setters altogether, since all the fields are pub anyway.

License Acceptance

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under
the terms of the Apache 2.0 license. For more information on following Developer
Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check
CONTRIBUTING.md.

PR Checklist

  • I have read and understand CONTRIBUTING.md.
  • I have run tools/devtool checkstyle to verify that the PR passes the
    automated style checks.
  • I have described what is done in these changes, why they are needed, and
    how they are solving the problem in a clear and encompassing way.
  • I have updated any relevant documentation (both in code and in the docs)
    in the PR.
  • I have mentioned all user-facing changes in CHANGELOG.md.
  • If a specific issue led to this PR, this PR closes the issue.
  • When making API changes, I have followed the
    Runbook for Firecracker API changes.
  • I have tested all new and changed functionalities in unit tests and/or
    integration tests.
  • I have linked an issue to every new TODO.

  • This functionality cannot be added in rust-vmm.

The initialization code for the `boot_source` field in
`build_boot_source` had me do a double take when I first saw, with all
the setters and getters obscuring what is really happening. Clean this
up by simply using a struct initializer, and also remove the getters and
setters altogether, since all the fields are pub anyway.

Signed-off-by: Patrick Roy <[email protected]>
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 15, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 84.08%. Comparing base (1320786) to head (34738b3).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4917      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   84.09%   84.08%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         251      251              
  Lines       28061    28058       -3     
==========================================
- Hits        23597    23592       -5     
- Misses       4464     4466       +2     
Flag Coverage Δ
5.10-c5n.metal 84.65% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
5.10-m5n.metal 84.63% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
5.10-m6a.metal 83.93% <100.00%> (-0.03%) ⬇️
5.10-m6g.metal 80.75% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
5.10-m6i.metal 84.63% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-m7g.metal 80.75% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
6.1-c5n.metal 84.64% <100.00%> (-0.03%) ⬇️
6.1-m5n.metal 84.63% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
6.1-m6a.metal 83.93% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
6.1-m6g.metal 80.75% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
6.1-m6i.metal 84.63% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
6.1-m7g.metal 80.75% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.


🚨 Try these New Features:

@roypat roypat added the Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed label Nov 15, 2024
@roypat roypat merged commit 46ba748 into firecracker-microvm:main Nov 25, 2024
6 of 7 checks passed
@roypat roypat deleted the getter-extermination branch November 25, 2024 17:24
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants