Skip to content
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

Add service transformation utils #1644

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 6, 2025

Conversation

kubukoz
Copy link
Member

@kubukoz kubukoz commented Feb 5, 2025

PR Checklist (not all items are relevant to all PRs)

  • Added unit-tests (for runtime code)
  • Added bootstrapped code + smoke tests (when the rendering logic is modified)
  • Added build-plugins integration tests (when reflection loading is required at codegen-time)
  • Added alloy compliance tests (when simpleRestJson protocol behaviour is expanded/updated)
  • Updated dynamic module to match generated-code behaviour
  • Added documentation
  • Updated changelog

@@ -96,3 +98,55 @@ final case class OperationSchema[I, E, O, SI, SO] private[smithy4s] (
copy(streamedOutput = streamedOutput.map(f))

}

object OperationSchema {
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

thought: if these are deemed overkill, I'm ok with removing them.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

the rest are more high-value though, I'd keep them as-is

Copy link
Contributor

@Baccata Baccata Feb 6, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Couldn't these be methods on the OperationSchema class instead of static functions ?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

no, if we want them as polyfunctions (and we do, if we want nice things like what you see in the new test), they have to be outside of the class

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

fair nuff

@kubukoz kubukoz marked this pull request as ready for review February 5, 2025 18:05
@Baccata Baccata merged commit e7ca3ec into series/0.18 Feb 6, 2025
11 checks passed
@Baccata Baccata deleted the add-service-transformation-utils branch February 6, 2025 15:59
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants