This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 16, 2023. It is now read-only.
Abstract listener client and message sender interfaces#226
Merged
Conversation
sayar
approved these changes
Jan 31, 2019
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Unlike the streaming client, the listener client and message sender interfaces are concrete in the types of arguments that all of its implementations receive (e.g. port and host). However, there are potential implementations for which these arguments won't be appropriate (e.g. a docker-client based message sender). As such, this pull request refactors the constructor signatures to follow the config-dictionary pattern. This will also enable dynamic creation and configuration of the classes in the future.
All Submissions:
Have you followed the guidelines in our Contributing document?
Have you checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same update/change?
Does your PR follow our Code of Conduct?
Have you added an explanation of what your changes do and why you'd like us to include them?
Does each method or function "do one thing well"? Reviewers may recommend methods be split up for maintainability and testability.
Is this code designed to be testable?
Is the code documented well?
Does your submission pass existing tests (or update existing tests with documentation regarding the change)?
Have you added tests to cover your changes?
Have you linted your code prior to submission?
Have you updated the documentation and README?
Is PII treated correctly? In particular, make sure the code is not logging objects or strings that might contain PII (e.g. request headers).
Have secrets been stripped before committing?