DEVEXP-320: Add support for Emails#34
Conversation
| // ---------------------------------------------- | ||
| // Method 1: Fetch the data page by page manually | ||
| // ---------------------------------------------- | ||
| let response= await sinchClient.fax.emails.list(requestData); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| let response= await sinchClient.fax.emails.list(requestData); | |
| let response = await sinchClient.fax.emails.list(requestData); |
| // ---------------------------------------------- | ||
| // Method 1: Fetch the data page by page manually | ||
| // ---------------------------------------------- | ||
| let response= await sinchClient.fax.emails.listNumbers(requestData); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| let response= await sinchClient.fax.emails.listNumbers(requestData); | |
| let response = await sinchClient.fax.emails.listNumbers(requestData); |
| // ---------------------------------------------- | ||
| // Method 1: Fetch the data page by page manually | ||
| // ---------------------------------------------- | ||
| let response= await sinchClient.fax.services.listEmailsForNumber(requestData); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| let response= await sinchClient.fax.services.listEmailsForNumber(requestData); | |
| let response = await sinchClient.fax.services.listEmailsForNumber(requestData); |
| const headers: { [key: string]: string | undefined } = { | ||
| 'Content-Type': 'application/json', | ||
| 'Accept': 'application/json', | ||
| }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Those headers seem to be the same for all EmailsApi operation. Maybe it will be better to not duplicate the code and use class variable for that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think it would be better to factorize in the code what can be (and actually is) defined individually at operation level in the specification. If the specification is updated later on and changes a single operation definition, the impacts on this generated code will be much bigger to apprehend than a direct regeneration.
What is bothering you exactly in this file? Is it the repetition of the same string? Is it the object definition itself?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah; just the repetition thing. Personally I like more concise source files.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Removed. See PR#36
2 participants
No description provided.