Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add missing RDS paginators #1548

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 19, 2018
Merged

Add missing RDS paginators #1548

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 19, 2018

Conversation

brandond
Copy link
Contributor

@brandond brandond commented Sep 4, 2018

Looks like someone added a paginator for DescribeDBClusters but didn't add paginators for any of the other Cluster actions.

@brandond
Copy link
Contributor Author

@stealthycoin @JordonPhillips seems like #1462 is a better long-term approach, as opposed to asking folks to manually maintain the paginators separate from the service definitions.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Dec 17, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #1548 into develop will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #1548   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    91.99%   91.99%           
========================================
  Files           51       51           
  Lines         9335     9335           
========================================
  Hits          8588     8588           
  Misses         747      747

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 069490e...1f46fbd. Read the comment docs.

@JordonPhillips
Copy link
Contributor

Auto-generating isn't foolproof - if the response contains anything but a list and the pagination token then it isn't safe to guess the result key. I know a while ago we actually did go through and auto-gen a bunch of them, but we haven't done so since. It would probably be worth doing that. In the meantime, this pr looks good so I'll go ahead and merge it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants