[COLLECTIONS] PR for issue COLLECTIONS-798

[Justyna Kubica-Ledzion <ju...@digitalnewagency.com>]

Hello,

I would like to contribute to Apache Commons projects. I’ve started with preparing a PR for issue COLLECTIONS-798: https://github.com/apache/commons-collections/pull/278.

Proposed changes:
replacing TestBuilder with a mock object using Mockito,
stubbing method: Builder with(byte[] item),
adding ArgumentCapture to check what parameters are passed to method Builder with(byte[] item),
adding parameterized tests instead of for loops.
Could you please review and let me know if my proposition is Ok?
I would appreciate any feedback.

Kind regards,
Justyna
-- 

*This e-mail and its attachment(s) may contain
information that is 
privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure
under applicable 
law. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are 
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or
copy of this 
message is strictly prohibited. If received in error, please
notify the 
sender immediately, delete the message, and any copies
thereof.*

Re: [COLLECTIONS] PR for issue COLLECTIONS-798

[Alex Herbert <al...@gmail.com>]

Thanks for the contribution.

The bloomfilter package is unrelease code and is currently being rewritten.
Your PR is updating a class that will be removed.

You are welcome to review the current design in PR 258:

https://github.com/apache/commons-collections/pull/258

Alex
<https://github.com/apache/commons-collections/pull/258>



On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 at 13:21, Justyna Kubica-Ledzion <
justyna.kubica-ledzion@digitalnewagency.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I would like to contribute to Apache Commons projects. I’ve started with
> preparing a PR for issue COLLECTIONS-798:
> https://github.com/apache/commons-collections/pull/278.
>
> Proposed changes:
> replacing TestBuilder with a mock object using Mockito,
> stubbing method: Builder with(byte[] item),
> adding ArgumentCapture to check what parameters are passed to method
> Builder with(byte[] item),
> adding parameterized tests instead of for loops.
> Could you please review and let me know if my proposition is Ok?
> I would appreciate any feedback.
>
> Kind regards,
> Justyna
> --
>
> *This e-mail and its attachment(s) may contain
> information that is
> privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure
> under applicable
> law. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or
> copy of this
> message is strictly prohibited. If received in error, please
> notify the
> sender immediately, delete the message, and any copies
> thereof.*
>