Packaging improvements / More producer control #10
Conversation
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
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #10 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage ? 28.91%
=========================================
Files ? 4
Lines ? 287
Branches ? 0
=========================================
Hits ? 83
Misses ? 204
Partials ? 0
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
added 9 commits
December 30, 2017 21:55
... and we'll take the latest version in py2
borgstrom
changed the title
borgstrom
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Improve setup.py by adding a long description, homepage url and other metadata
Implement explicit partition & hash keys for
KinesisProducer.put-- Fixes Ability to specify partition key #5Allow for explicit
max_count&max_sizekwargs when creating aKinesisProducerCalculate object size better -- Originally we were just using
sys.getsizeof, which only calculated the size of the dictionary structure, not the contents within it (🤦♂️ ).Write some unit tests -- more need to be written, but it's a start...