Fixes problems observed while reviewing and testing the code#23
Merged
Conversation
…d not mention the need to add the important and the code won't compile without it
…ch the 'practice' version)
angelazhou32
approved these changes
Jan 15, 2026
angelazhou32
left a comment
angelazhou32
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you @tomwheeler !!
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What was changed
I fixed a variety of problems in the exercise, mainly to better follow Java conventions and to reduce unnecessary differences between the practice and solution versions. I also upgraded to the latest Temporal SDK. Finally, I downgraded a library used for unit tests in order to work around a bug in the current version, which prevented any unit tests from being executed.
Additionally, I fixed a problem with the code sample, which was that the package name did not match the name of the directory containing the source file. I addressed that by removing the package statement, which wasn't needed in this example since there were no other source files and therefore no possibility for confusing this class name with another one.
Why?
After reviewing PR #22, I realized that the entire codebase for this repo would benefit from a closer inspection.
Checklist
I tested these changes locally by manually running through the exercise (I tested PR #22 on GitHub Codespaces a couple of hours ago, so I am confident that the code in this PR runs equally well on Codespaces).