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

consistency with additional and job_options #683

Closed
soxofaan opened this issue Dec 10, 2024 · 1 comment
Closed

consistency with additional and job_options #683

soxofaan opened this issue Dec 10, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@soxofaan
Copy link
Member

A bit related to #681:

We have a bit of inconsistent API regarding "additional" properties and "job options":

  • Connection.create_job() only has argument additional. And, confusingly, puts this under an extra "job_options" field in the request
  • DataCube.create_job() (and alike) only have argument job_options, which is passed to additional in Connection.create_job
  • Connection.download()/DataCube.dowload() (and alike) have neither (support "job options" for sync processing #681)

I think it's best to align everything.
We can not really remove one or the other: additional is more in line with official spec, so should be kept/added where necessary. job_options is less official, but heavily used in existing code, so we can not just remove it.
Best seems to just support both additional and job_options

soxofaan added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 10, 2024
soxofaan added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 10, 2024
soxofaan added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 10, 2024
soxofaan added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 10, 2024
soxofaan added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 10, 2024
…ons argument in create_job, download, ...
soxofaan added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 10, 2024
soxofaan added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 10, 2024
@soxofaan
Copy link
Member Author

done with ec66b31 from #684

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

No branches or pull requests

1 participant