DE-175: Create general cloudLibrary client #38
Merged
Conversation
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
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good code-wise! I haven't reviewed the tests yet but before I do I just want to confirm that the ereading team is going to use this. I thought they were using a different API version or something like that? Otherwise it seems like this code can live somewhere else and be simplified a bit
aaronfriedman6
previously approved these changes
Nov 19, 2024
aaronfriedman6
approved these changes
Nov 20, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Since this client is used within eReading and PJR, thought it would be useful to add here!
This cloudLibrary client is relatively straightforward -- the only weird thing is the
requestfunction, which is necessary for formatting headers and authorization for each API call. Thisrequestfunction is modeled after a similar one used in eReading. Wasn't entirely sure whether it's worth testing since all it's doing is an API call, but lmk your thoughts!