Give Image::pull, Image::build and Image::import chunked json a type
#262
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
vv9k
changed the title
Image::pull, Image::build and Image::import chunked json a type
src/rep.rs
Outdated
Comment on lines
35
to
48
| #[derive(Serialize, Deserialize, Debug)] | ||
| pub struct ImagePullChunk { | ||
| status: String, | ||
| id: Option<String>, | ||
| progress: Option<String>, | ||
| #[serde(rename = "progressDetail")] | ||
| progress_detail: Option<ProgressDetail>, | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[derive(Serialize, Deserialize, Debug)] | ||
| pub struct ProgressDetail { | ||
| current: Option<u64>, | ||
| total: Option<u64>, | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel like this would be better as an enum instead of a struct with optional fields, but I can't think of a good way to slice it...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think it makes sense to split it up into an enum as all fields can be present at the same time or 3 fields, or just 1
Yes, I wish it was documented somehow as well. Only way to find out what is available is to test every possibility and even then it's sometimes hard to fake an error or some random condition that would return a chunk not properly handled. As a side note, I also find it annoying that most fields in API reference, although declared as not nullable are actually nullable and one has to determine by doing lots of tests... |
vv9k
commented
Feb 11, 2021
src/rep.rs
Outdated
| #[derive(Serialize, Deserialize, Debug)] | ||
| #[serde(untagged)] | ||
| /// Represents a response chunk from Docker api when building, pulling or importing an image. | ||
| pub enum ImageBuildChunk { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm also wondering if this is the best name. Maybe ImageStreamChunk or something else?
|
Ok, so perhaps not in api reference but the struct |
|
I'm wondering how to handle this one. Should I create EDIT: Current way definitely feels much more readable compared to this: |
|
So I rebased the PR, and brought back |
matthiasbeyer
approved these changes
Apr 9, 2021
Merged
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.
What did you implement:
Added a type
ImageBuildChunkfor stream chunks when usingImage::pullandImage::build.Closes: #144
How did you verify your change:
Tested locally and got expected results:
Image::pullImage::BuildWhat (if anything) would need to be called out in the CHANGELOG for the next release:
I updated the CHANGELOG accordingly.