Adjust applyPermissions logic #10919

[vbradnitski]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 95.83333% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 84.67%. Comparing base (a2b5ceb) to head (538cde4).
Report is 6 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...xp/repo/impl/node/ApplyNodePermissionsCommand.java	95.23%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #10928      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     84.66%   84.67%   +0.01%     
- Complexity    19965    19968       +3     
============================================
  Files          2622     2622              
  Lines         69374    69356      -18     
  Branches       5600     5600              
============================================
- Hits          58734    58726       -8     
+ Misses         7933     7929       -4     
+ Partials       2707     2701       -6     

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

[codacy-production]

⚠️ Codacy found a medium ErrorProne issue: These nested if statements could be combined

The issue identified by the PMD linter is that the nested if statements can be combined into a single conditional expression. This improves the readability of the code by reducing the number of nested blocks and making the logic clearer.

Here’s the original line:

Suggested change

	if ( updatedSourceNode != null && updatedSourceNode.node() != null )
	if ( updatedSourceNode != null && updatedSourceNode.node() != null )

The suggestion is to combine the conditions into a single line without changing the logic.

Here’s the code suggestion:

Suggested change

	if ( updatedSourceNode != null && updatedSourceNode.node() != null )
	if ( updatedSourceNode != null && updatedSourceNode.node() != null )

This line is already optimal, but if you want to avoid the nested if statement altogether, you could simplify it by using a single if statement with a method reference or a lambda if appropriate. However, since the request is for a single line change, the original line is already concise and correct.

If you want to directly address the suggestion made by PMD, you could refactor the code to avoid nesting entirely. Here’s a more concise way to express the same logic:

Suggested change

	if ( updatedSourceNode != null && updatedSourceNode.node() != null )
	if ( updatedSourceNode != null && updatedSourceNode.node() != null ) doApplyOnChildren(permissions, updatedSourceNode.node().path());

This single line change removes the nested structure by directly invoking doApplyOnChildren if both conditions are met.

---

This comment was generated by an experimental AI tool.