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 IterableRunLogsResponse #797

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 8, 2023
Merged

Conversation

ada-globus
Copy link
Contributor

@ada-globus ada-globus commented Aug 8, 2023

Discovered in the course of working on the globus flows run get-logs command that the existing iterator doesn't point to the "entries" key, causing issues when using Paginator.wrap() which relies on the value of the default_iter_key.

Update: Subsequently discovered the issue I was encountering arose due to a different issue. I still believe this is correct, but I am reverting to draft while I sort it out.

Update 2: Okay, I can see this is being overridden by the paging.has_paginator setting. I think this is still a very modest improvement to correctness but don't expect a meaningful functional change either. Promoting back to PR.


📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://globus-sdk-python--797.org.readthedocs.build/en/797/

@ada-globus ada-globus marked this pull request as draft August 8, 2023 18:47
@ada-globus ada-globus marked this pull request as ready for review August 8, 2023 18:55
Copy link
Member

@sirosen sirosen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yep, this makes sense.

I can't remember how exactly we ended up with default_iter_key and items_key, but I think these developed semi-independently.
I would be happy to work at some point on unifying these a little bit, but for now applying both does the trick.

@ada-globus ada-globus merged commit 340adb1 into main Aug 8, 2023
26 checks passed
@ada-globus ada-globus deleted the an/add-iterable-run-logs-response branch August 8, 2023 19:49
@kurtmckee kurtmckee mentioned this pull request Aug 11, 2023
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.

3 participants