V8 rc1 #1082
V8 rc1 #1082
Conversation
|
Taj, just a note: I went ahead and disabled |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## 8.0.0-rc #1082 +/- ##
==============================================
- Coverage 69.77% 65.53% -4.25%
+ Complexity 3190 3002 -188
==============================================
Files 650 652 +2
Lines 15588 17099 +1511
Branches 903 934 +31
==============================================
+ Hits 10877 11205 +328
- Misses 4323 5528 +1205
+ Partials 388 366 -22
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 looks good! I just had a few questions but approving since nothing particularly important.
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| #### ICP | ||
| #### Cloud Pak for Data |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looking at this I wonder if we need to keep an example for ICP authentication. This would be using BasicAuthenticator and disabling ssl verification. What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah that might be worth it. I don't know the numbers on people using the SDKs on ICP but it's probably similar to CP4D so it can't hurt 🤷♀
| private DeleteIntentOptions(Builder builder) { | ||
| Validator.notEmpty(builder.workspaceId, "workspaceId cannot be empty"); | ||
| Validator.notEmpty(builder.intent, "intent cannot be empty"); | ||
| com.ibm.cloud.sdk.core.util.Validator.notEmpty(builder.workspaceId, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there any reason why you changed to use the full namespace for Validator?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep, this started in this issue, which then became this PR.
There was some discussion in there that some internally-used classes like Validator should be fully-qualified for future-proofing against any possible conflicts with generated code. This specific change was added (among other things) here.
| @@ -21,16 +21,16 @@ | |||
| public class Class extends GenericModel { | |||
|
|
|||
| @SerializedName("class") | |||
| private String className; | |||
| private String xclass; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this a java naming convention?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not really... I wasn't too sure about what to do with the reserved names and there's no set Java convention.
I think it'll be better at least to just keep the x and camelCase the name. I'll make that change.
| @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ checkstyle { | |||
| dependencies { | |||
| compile project(':common') | |||
| testCompile project(':common').sourceSets.test.output | |||
| compile 'com.ibm.cloud:sdk-core:4.5.0' | |||
| compile 'com.ibm.cloud:sdk-core:7.0.0-rc1' | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did the core jump from 4.x.x to 7.x.x?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Surprisingly, yes 😬
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 8.0.0 🎉 The release is available on GitHub release Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
This PR generates everything fresh for the
v8.0.0pre-release. This is using the following commits:Most changes are related to authorization config changes and the addition of builders on all of the request models that were missing them previously. All documentation has been updated to reflect big user-facing changes.