-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
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
Added missing fields for deployments API #2560
Merged
Merged
Changes from 5 commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
e865d30
added missing fields for deployments API
hansmbakker 3f68373
revert Uri typing
hansmbakker 8a2ca1a
Update Octokit/Models/Response/Deployment.cs
hansmbakker 22637f5
Update JSON and asserts in DeploymentTests
hansmbakker 34da55a
Merge branch 'feature/deployments-api' of https://github.com/hansmbak…
hansmbakker b0c8dde
Switch protected set to private set
hansmbakker ed3947a
Merge branch 'main' into feature/deployments-api
nickfloyd File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey @hansmbakker, Thanks for the change set here! ❤️ It looks like @JonruAlveus already has you covered on the review front. I did want to highlight that as we've been modifying these models, we've been updating the property accessors to be the more appropriate
private
instead ofprotected
.There is no way you would've known this unless you've watched the PRs over the past few months. I've got an incoming PR that has done a sweep to unify all of our Response models under this approach - just giving you a heads up here in case you wanted to change this one as well. Not a blocker, though.
Thanks again for the changes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@nickfloyd should it not be
{ get; init; }
then since they are only set in the constructor?And with that, should those models not be
record
s rather thanclass
es?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey @hansmbakker
{ get; init; }
would certainly be a much more semantically rich way to write this, but we cannot make that jump just yet for 2 reasons:There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@nickfloyd thanks for the explanation.
With that - #2562 would be beneficial for several reasons.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@hansmbakker, I 100% agree. I look forward to working as a community to drive changes like your suggested. Certain things just can't / shouldn't be generated, and whatever we can use to drive down complexity would be a win for this SDK! ❤️