-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 996
Move endpoint resolution from interceptors to pipeline stage #6820
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: feature/master/core-interceptors-migration
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
7b09efe
77abd70
fdb9d51
cc4fcf8
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file was deleted.
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ditto here, we need codegen tests |
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -224,6 +224,8 @@ public CodeBlock executionHandler(OperationModel opModel) { | |
| .add(".withMetricCollector(apiCallMetricCollector)\n") | ||
| .add(".withAuthSchemeOptionsResolver(r -> resolveAuthSchemeOptions(r, $S, clientConfiguration))\n", | ||
| opModel.getOperationName()) | ||
| .add(".withEndpointResolver((r, a) -> resolveEndpoint(r, a, $S))\n", | ||
| opModel.getOperationName()) | ||
| .add(HttpChecksumRequiredTrait.putHttpChecksumAttribute(opModel)) | ||
| .add(HttpChecksumTrait.create(opModel)); | ||
|
|
||
|
|
@@ -299,6 +301,8 @@ public CodeBlock asyncExecutionHandler(IntermediateModel intermediateModel, Oper | |
| .add(".withMetricCollector(apiCallMetricCollector)\n") | ||
| .add(".withAuthSchemeOptionsResolver(r -> resolveAuthSchemeOptions(r, $S, clientConfiguration))\n", | ||
| opModel.getOperationName()) | ||
| .add(".withEndpointResolver((r, a) -> resolveEndpoint(r, a, $S))\n", | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This is beyond the scope of this PR, but it feels pretty weird that we need to specify the endpoint resolver (and auth scheme, metrics, ect) in protocol specific generation - these should be consistent across our protocols. (but again, this is beyond the scope of this PR, I don't think we need to refactor now....)
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Agree, the protocol specs have a lot of duplicated code. We can follow-up on this. |
||
| opModel.getOperationName()) | ||
| .add(hostPrefixExpression(opModel)) | ||
| .add(discoveredEndpoint(opModel)) | ||
| .add(credentialType(opModel, model)) | ||
|
|
||
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.