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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
ClientHelper / SpecHelper improvement with source generation tests #267
ClientHelper / SpecHelper improvement with source generation tests #267
Changes from 4 commits
0dcaa6f
f5c0e1c
b17616f
8129eea
3dad978
7381589
ecbf4eb
ab57eef
ee3ee4b
62b35b2
ed5a7b3
a2c912d
f4daf31
cefec36
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
I still struggle with this naming. What about "generated in-memory client"
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.
from source I still find confusing maybe
generate_in_memory_client
or something like that.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.
I think this model should work the same way our other smithy models do - we should have a model.smithy + model.json and we load that here.
Its terrible to work in smithy json. Its even worse to work in ruby hashes that are trying to look like json.
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.
The advantage to having the model json in code, prior to generation, is that we can modify contents in the test. For example v3 code has tests like:
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.
Yeah I like that ability - I guess I'm not suggesting that we can't have that - just that where the default comes from is a smithy model rather than an in code hash which is just kinda ugly and super annoying to edit.
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.
Ideally this is only written once, but yeah we can have a fixture default I suppose, but we need a way to modify it at runtime I think.