fix: expose error status, headers and body on failed clientBatchCheck items by SoulPancake · Pull Request #381 · openfga/java-sdk

SoulPancake · 2026-08-29T04:05:32Z

The throwable passed to ClientBatchCheckClientResponse is the CompletionException from the check future, so the instanceof FgaError branch never matched and statusCode, headers and rawResponse stayed null, making getStatusCode() throw NullPointerException. Unwrap the wrapper exception before the check.

Fixes #380

Description

What problem is being solved?

How is it being solved?

What changes are made to solve it?

References

Review Checklist

I have clicked on "allow edits by maintainers".
I have added documentation for new/changed functionality in this PR or in a PR to openfga.dev [Provide a link to any relevant PRs in the references section above]
The correct base branch is being used, if not main
I have added tests to validate that the change in functionality is working as expected

Summary by CodeRabbit

Bug Fixes
- Improved batch check error handling by correctly unwrapping underlying exceptions.
- Preserved HTTP status codes, response bodies, and headers when available, including cases without an HTTP response.
Tests
- Expanded error-handling coverage for batch checks returning 400, 404, and 500 responses.

… items The throwable passed to ClientBatchCheckClientResponse is the CompletionException from the check future, so the instanceof FgaError branch never matched and statusCode, headers and rawResponse stayed null, making getStatusCode() throw NullPointerException. Unwrap the wrapper exception before the check. Fixes #380

coderabbitai · 2026-08-29T04:05:39Z

Important

Review skipped

Auto incremental reviews are disabled on this repository.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 44036503-2270-4947-b345-5725e270af53

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

🔍 Trigger review

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: f6c7a746-4a56-458d-8ae5-3e7e8ef4a6c1

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 37317f2 and a53c11f.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

src/main/java/dev/openfga/sdk/api/client/model/ClientBatchCheckClientResponse.java
src/test/java/dev/openfga/sdk/api/client/OpenFgaClientTest.java

Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 1 included review per hour; 0 remain after this review.

Walkthrough

The batch-check response constructor now unwraps asynchronous exceptions and safely copies error response metadata. Tests verify status codes, raw bodies, and headers for 400, 404, and 500 errors.

Changes

Batch check error metadata

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Unwrap errors and validate response metadata `src/main/java/dev/openfga/sdk/api/client/model/ClientBatchCheckClientResponse.java`, `src/test/java/dev/openfga/sdk/api/client/OpenFgaClientTest.java`	The constructor unwraps `CompletionException` and `ExecutionException`, handles null response headers, and preserves error metadata. Tests validate status codes, raw response bodies, and headers for failed checks.

Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to a53c1

Failed batch-check items now expose the existing error status, headers, and body instead of leaving them unavailable. No actionable merge-blocking risk remains beyond normal checks and review.

Suggested reviewers: aaguiarz

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 4 functions across 2 files.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and concisely describes the main change: exposing error status, headers, and body for failed clientBatchCheck items.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The implementation addresses issue `#380` by unwrapping CompletionException and ExecutionException, copying FgaError response metadata, and adding tests for status code, headers, and raw response body a…
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	All changes are related to issue `#380`. The production fix and supporting clientBatchCheck tests remain within scope.

Full details: Linked Issues check

Explanation

The implementation addresses issue #380 by unwrapping CompletionException and ExecutionException, copying FgaError response metadata, and adding tests for status code, headers, and raw response body across 400, 404, and 500 errors.

✨ Finishing Touches 💡 1

📝 Generate docstrings 💡

Create stacked PR
Commit on current branch

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

Create PR with unit tests
Commit unit tests in branch fix/issue-380

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

codecov-commenter · 2026-08-29T04:06:06Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 71.42857% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 38.86%. Comparing base (37317f2) to head (661ebee).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...i/client/model/ClientBatchCheckClientResponse.java	71.42%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main     #381      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     38.73%   38.86%   +0.13%     
- Complexity     1292     1298       +6     
============================================
  Files           198      198              
  Lines          7707     7711       +4     
  Branches        900      902       +2     
============================================
+ Hits           2985     2997      +12     
+ Misses         4576     4567       -9     
- Partials        146      147       +1

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Fixes failed batch-check items so HTTP error metadata is exposed correctly.

Changes:

Unwraps asynchronous exception wrappers before detecting FgaError.
Safely extracts status, headers, and raw response.
Adds coverage for HTTP 400, 404, and 500 failures.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

File	Description
`ClientBatchCheckClientResponse.java`	Extracts metadata from wrapped errors.
`OpenFgaClientTest.java`	Verifies failed-item HTTP metadata.

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

Network failures (connection refused, timeout, DNS) exhaust retries and fail with a plain ApiException rather than an FgaError, so statusCode stays null and the primitive getStatusCode() threw the same NullPointerException as issue #380. Return a boxed, null-documented Integer instead of a fake sentinel status, document the null behaviour of getHeaders() and getRawResponse(), and cover the exhausted-retries network-failure path with a WireMock connection-fault test.

Siddhant-K-code · 2026-08-31T14:50:18Z

getStatusCode() now returns Integer instead of int. This is source-compatible, but it changes the JVM method descriptor and is binary-incompatible for precompiled consumers. Non-blocking, but worth calling out in the changelog or release notes.

Siddhant-K-code · 2026-08-31T15:18:09Z

@SoulPancake - do you think, we should update in changelog?

SoulPancake · 2026-08-31T15:19:04Z

@Siddhant-K-code
That can be done while we are creating the release as changelog is auto-generated from commits during the release-please PR creation

SoulPancake requested a balanced review from Copilot August 30, 2026 04:39

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of SoulPancake August 30, 2026 04:40 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Aug 30, 2026

View reviewed changes

SoulPancake marked this pull request as ready for review August 31, 2026 05:12

SoulPancake requested a review from a team as a code owner August 31, 2026 05:12

Siddhant-K-code reviewed Aug 31, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/main/java/dev/openfga/sdk/api/client/model/ClientBatchCheckClientResponse.java

SoulPancake requested a review from a team August 31, 2026 12:32

Siddhant-K-code approved these changes Aug 31, 2026

View reviewed changes

SoulPancake added this pull request to the merge queue Aug 31, 2026

Merged via the queue into main with commit 8da296e Aug 31, 2026
27 checks passed

SoulPancake deleted the fix/issue-380 branch August 31, 2026 15:21

Navigation Menu

Uh oh!

fix: expose error status, headers and body on failed clientBatchCheck items - #381

fix: expose error status, headers and body on failed clientBatchCheck items#381
SoulPancake merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
fix/issue-380

SoulPancake commented Aug 29, 2026 •

edited by coderabbitai Bot

Loading

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Review skipped

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Uh oh!

codecov-commenter commented Aug 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Siddhant-K-code commented Aug 31, 2026

Uh oh!

Siddhant-K-code commented Aug 31, 2026

Uh oh!

SoulPancake commented Aug 31, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

SoulPancake commented Aug 29, 2026 • edited by coderabbitai Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

What problem is being solved?

How is it being solved?

What changes are made to solve it?

References

Review Checklist

Summary by CodeRabbit

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Review skipped

Walkthrough

Changes

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Uh oh!

codecov-commenter commented Aug 29, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Siddhant-K-code commented Aug 31, 2026

Uh oh!

Siddhant-K-code commented Aug 31, 2026

Uh oh!

SoulPancake commented Aug 31, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

SoulPancake commented Aug 29, 2026 •

edited by coderabbitai Bot

Loading

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov-commenter commented Aug 29, 2026 •

edited

Loading