• 
      
    Fish Trophy

    david got a fish trophy!

    Fish Trophy

    Add new resources, part 2/7.

    Review Request #14341 — Created Feb. 10, 2025 and submitted

    Information

    RBTools
    master

    Reviewers

    This change adds the following new resource implementations:
    - ChangeItemResource
    - ChangeListResource
    - DiffContextResource
    - LastUpdateResource
    - ReviewRequestDraftResource
    - StatusUpdateItemResource
    - StatusUpdateListResource

    • Ran unit tests.
    • Used the new resources from a test script and saw that everything
      worked as expected.
    Summary ID
    Add new resources, part 2/7.
    This change adds the following new resource implementations: - ChangeItemResource - ChangeListResource - DiffContextResource - LastUpdateResource - ReviewRequestDraftResource - StatusUpdateItemResource - StatusUpdateListResource Testing Done: - Ran unit tests. - Used the new resources from a test script and saw that everything worked as expected.
    6e0ee6adeb52a440e4587d34c03874c665daed4f
    Description From Last Updated

    Something that occurred to me while reviewing this. Since we have some deprecated functions and some new ones, we might …

    chipx86chipx86

    line too long (80 > 79 characters) Column: 80 Error code: E501

    reviewbotreviewbot

    This isn't needed in the TypedDict.

    chipx86chipx86

    Can we link this here and below? We can use standard Sphinx references, since we reference RB docs.

    chipx86chipx86

    The API doesn't allow for mutating this, so we should make this a Mapping.

    chipx86chipx86

    This is in a TypedDict, so we don't need this here.

    chipx86chipx86

    These are all Mapping now.

    chipx86chipx86

    Small nit, but can we list these as bullet points?

    chipx86chipx86

    Can we separate these out into paragraph per, so it doesn't all run together? Alternatively, worth having an enum? This …

    chipx86chipx86

    Should we mark this deprecated then? Even if we're going to keep it around for backwards-compatibility.

    chipx86chipx86

    Same question as above.

    chipx86chipx86

    And here. And others that are considered legacy.

    chipx86chipx86
    Checks run (1 failed, 1 succeeded)
    flake8 failed.
    JSHint passed.

    flake8

    david
    david
    chipx86
    1. 
        
    2. Show all issues

      Something that occurred to me while reviewing this. Since we have some deprecated functions and some new ones, we might want to include for every function a Review Board compatibility range of some sort. This absolutely doesn't need to be part of this change, but it's probably worth having, especially as we introduce new APIs.

      1. Will think about it.

    3. rbtools/api/resource/change.py (Diff revision 3)
       
       
       
       
       
      Show all issues

      This isn't needed in the TypedDict.

    4. rbtools/api/resource/change.py (Diff revision 3)
       
       
      Show all issues

      Can we link this here and below? We can use standard Sphinx references, since we reference RB docs.

    5. rbtools/api/resource/change.py (Diff revision 3)
       
       
      Show all issues

      The API doesn't allow for mutating this, so we should make this a Mapping.

    6. rbtools/api/resource/diff_context.py (Diff revision 3)
       
       
       
       
      Show all issues

      This is in a TypedDict, so we don't need this here.

    7. rbtools/api/resource/diff_context.py (Diff revision 3)
       
       
      Show all issues

      These are all Mapping now.

    8. rbtools/api/resource/last_update.py (Diff revision 3)
       
       
       
      Show all issues

      Small nit, but can we list these as bullet points?

    9. rbtools/api/resource/last_update.py (Diff revision 3)
       
       
       
       
       
      Show all issues

      Can we separate these out into paragraph per, so it doesn't all run together?

      Alternatively, worth having an enum? This question more broadly applies to other Literal instances. Purely food for thought, and nothing that would need to go into this set of changes.

    10. rbtools/api/resource/root.py (Diff revision 3)
       
       
      Show all issues

      Should we mark this deprecated then? Even if we're going to keep it around for backwards-compatibility.

      1. Let me think about your point above regarding versioning, since I think anything we do there would impact this.

    11. rbtools/api/resource/root.py (Diff revision 3)
       
       
       
      Show all issues

      Same question as above.

    12. rbtools/api/resource/root.py (Diff revision 3)
       
       
       
      Show all issues

      And here. And others that are considered legacy.

    13. 
        
    david
    maubin
    1. Ship It!
    2. 
        
    chipx86
    1. Ship It!
    2. 
        
    david
    Review request changed
    Status:
    Completed
    Change Summary:
    Pushed to master (3bae21e)