[hotrod]: Fix incorrect error return

[huochexizhan]

Which problem is this PR solving?

Description of the changes

Since we have already checked err before and returned != nil, err must be nil here. In fact, it should return result.err.

How was this change tested?

Checklist

• I have read https://github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING_GUIDELINES.md
• I have signed all commits
• I have added unit tests for the new functionality
• I have run lint and test steps successfully
  • for jaeger: make lint test
  • for jaeger-ui: npm run lint and npm run test

[gemini-code-assist]

Hello @huochexizhan, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

Summary of Changes

This pull request addresses an issue in the examples/hotrod/services/frontend/best_eta.go file where an incorrect error value was being returned. Specifically, the code was returning a general err variable instead of the result.err from the loop. The change ensures that the correct error associated with a specific result is returned when an error occurs during the ETA calculation.

Highlights

• Bug Fix: The pull request fixes a bug where the wrong error was being returned in the Get function of the bestETA struct.
• Error Handling: The change ensures that the specific error (result.err) from each result is returned, providing more accurate error information.

Changelog

• examples/hotrod/services/frontend/best_eta.go
  • Corrected the error return value in the Get function to return result.err instead of err on line 92.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

---

Did you know?

The MaxInt64 constant used in the code represents the largest 64-bit integer value, often used as an initial 'infinite' value in algorithms.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

The pull request fixes an incorrect nil return value in the Get function of the bestETA struct. The change replaces err with result.err in the return statement when an error is encountered within the loop. This ensures that the specific error from the route result is returned, rather than a potentially uninitialized or unrelated error variable. The change seems correct and addresses the issue described.

Summary of Findings

Merge Readiness

The code change appears to be correct and addresses the identified issue. Since there are no review comments, I would recommend that this pull request is ready to be merged. I am unable to directly approve the pull request, and users should have others review and approve this code before merging.

[yurishkuro]

god catch

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.02%. Comparing base (06cc410) to head (f47a1a8).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6787      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   96.03%   96.02%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         364      364              
  Lines       20690    20690              
==========================================
- Hits        19870    19867       -3     
- Misses        626      628       +2     
- Partials      194      195       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
badger_v1	9.81% <ø> (ø)
badger_v2	1.89% <ø> (ø)
cassandra-4.x-v1-manual	14.86% <ø> (ø)
cassandra-4.x-v2-auto	1.88% <ø> (ø)
cassandra-4.x-v2-manual	1.88% <ø> (ø)
cassandra-5.x-v1-manual	14.86% <ø> (ø)
cassandra-5.x-v2-auto	1.88% <ø> (ø)
cassandra-5.x-v2-manual	1.88% <ø> (ø)
elasticsearch-6.x-v1	19.19% <ø> (ø)
elasticsearch-7.x-v1	19.27% <ø> (ø)
elasticsearch-8.x-v1	19.44% <ø> (ø)
elasticsearch-8.x-v2	1.89% <ø> (ø)
grpc_v1	10.86% <ø> (ø)
grpc_v2	7.86% <ø> (ø)
kafka-3.x-v1	10.11% <ø> (ø)
kafka-3.x-v2	1.89% <ø> (ø)
memory_v2	1.89% <ø> (ø)
opensearch-1.x-v1	19.32% <ø> (ø)
opensearch-2.x-v1	19.32% <ø> (ø)
opensearch-2.x-v2	1.89% <ø> (ø)
tailsampling-processor	0.48% <ø> (ø)
unittests	94.91% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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