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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

refactor: Use new duck typing for content item .repository methods #366

Merged
merged 14 commits into from
Dec 17, 2024
Merged

refactor: Use new duck typing for content item .repository methods #366

merged 14 commits into from
Dec 17, 2024

Conversation

schloerke
Copy link
Collaborator

@schloerke schloerke commented Dec 16, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Related: #364

Other changes:

  • Remove _api.py, _api_call.py, _json.py files as they are unused
  • Move to new file to avoid crowding
  • Use "mixin" to keep all methods close to each other
  • Changed .update() method to update in place

@github-actions GitHub Actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 16, 2024 •
edited
Loading

☂️ Python Coverage

current status: ✅

Overall Coverage

Lines Covered Coverage Threshold Status
1785 1671 94% 0% 🟢

New Files

File Coverage Status
src/posit/connect/repository.py 79% 🟢
TOTAL 79% 🟢

Modified Files

File Coverage Status
src/posit/connect/content.py 98% 🟢
src/posit/connect/resources.py 91% 🟢
TOTAL 95% 🟢

updated for commit: e36eb94 by action🐍

@schloerke schloerke changed the title refactor: Use new duck type for content item repository refactor: Use new duck typing for content item .repository methods Dec 16, 2024
@schloerke schloerke marked this pull request as ready for review December 16, 2024 22:29
@schloerke schloerke requested a review from tdstein as a code owner December 16, 2024 22:29
tdstein
tdstein reviewed Dec 17, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@tdstein tdstein left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks great overall! I have a few minor questions...

@tdstein
Copy link
Collaborator

tdstein commented Dec 17, 2024

Checks didn't kick off for some reason. It's probably related to the partial outage on GitHub.

@schloerke
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Ah! There are some merge followups to resolve before merging as well.

@schloerke schloerke merged commit c0b08db into main Dec 17, 2024
35 checks passed
@schloerke schloerke deleted the schloerke/gut_api_files branch December 17, 2024 16:18
@schloerke schloerke mentioned this pull request Dec 17, 2024
Merged
1 task
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@tdstein tdstein tdstein approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@schloerke @tdstein