Code Refactored for readability and maintainability

[piyushjoshi01]

Improved Code Quality by removing code smells like Complex Conditional, Complex Method, Cyclically-dependent Modularization, Insufficient Modularization.

[piyushjoshi01]

Sorry man, I will update it

…

On Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 22:03 David B Malkovsky ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** commented on this pull request. ------------------------------ In src/main/java/org/isf/serviceprinting/manager/PrintManager.java <#1304 (comment)> : > @@ -1,24 +1,3 @@ -/* Come on....what are you doing removing licensing information? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1304 (review)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AV4F4JAHB4S7YBL52KIVA5DY25OFBAVCNFSM6AAAAABFP5CDUSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43YUDVNRWFEZLROVSXG5CSMV3GSZLXHMYTSNZQGA3TMMBXGE> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[mwithi]

Hi @piyushjoshi01, thank you for your effort and contribution to this project. Upon reviewing it, we've identified a few concerns that need to be addressed before we can proceed with merging.

Firstly, there seem to be conflicts with existing files as indicated in the "PR automatic review" below. Additionally, we've noticed that there are some discrepancies between the test frameworks being used (Junit 4 versus Junit 5) which need to be rectified for consistency within our project standards.

Furthermore, while we appreciate the effort in refactoring the code into smaller methods, it appears that some of these methods lack comprehensive JavaDoc documentation. Additionally, we are concerned that the refactoring may introduce unnecessary overhead in terms of runtime due to increased method calls.

We truly value your contributions and believe that with these adjustments, your changes could significantly enhance our codebase. We encourage you to address these points and to have a look to the Code Style requsitions.

[piyushjoshi01]

I will look into this and get back to you.

…

On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 1:49 PM Alessandro Domanico ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** requested changes on this pull request. Hi @piyushjoshi01 <https://github.com/piyushjoshi01>, thank you for your effort and contribution to this project. Upon reviewing it, we've identified a few concerns that need to be addressed before we can proceed with merging. Firstly, there seem to be conflicts with existing files as indicated in the "PR automatic review" below. Additionally, we've noticed that there are some discrepancies between the test frameworks being used (Junit 4 versus Junit 5) which need to be rectified for consistency within our project standards. Furthermore, while we appreciate the effort in refactoring the code into smaller methods, it appears that some of these methods lack comprehensive JavaDoc documentation. Additionally, we are concerned that the refactoring may introduce unnecessary overhead in terms of runtime due to increased method calls. We truly value your contributions and believe that with these adjustments, your changes could significantly enhance our codebase. We encourage you to address these points and to have a look to the Code Style <https://github.com/informatici/openhospital-core?tab=readme-ov-file#code-style> requsitions. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1304 (review)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AV4F4JFZGSSX2L7I3ZTXAKLY3LOQHAVCNFSM6AAAAABFP5CDUSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43YUDVNRWFEZLROVSXG5CSMV3GSZLXHMYTSNZUGM4TQNZRGI> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>