Skip to content

Conversation

@bikamani
Copy link
Contributor

This PR is for adding initial CL skeleton we all can use and contribute to. It's the minimal code added to get to build service client and each of us working on sub client can later add constructors, methods, build http pipeline, credentials etc.

Review the client grouping and design we discussed.

@bikamani bikamani requested a review from AlexGhiondea as a code owner May 27, 2020 18:10
/// place holder for Devices
/// </summary>
public DevicesClient Devices;
/// <summary>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are we not going to have query at this level?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's a good one to discuss. We decided CL grouping for twins under Devices and Modules as per onenote. Do we want to keep Query as a separate client instead?

Copy link
Member

@vinagesh vinagesh May 27, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes that is right - groupings

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Well query spans over several areas i.e not just twins but also jobs and also raw queries. What about those?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@bikamani bikamani May 27, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This can be changed later if this approach we decided does not work well. We thought Query for each individual sub client would be more discoverable.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is raw queries?

@bikamani bikamani merged commit 509ee94 into feature/IoT-Hub May 27, 2020
@bikamani bikamani deleted the feature/iot/bikamani/clientDesign branch May 27, 2020 23:31
vinagesh pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 9, 2020
azabbasi added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 29, 2020
* feat(hub): Creating a new feature branch with swagger and generated files

* fix(doc): Fix markdown for API design doc (#11690)

* swagger(iothub): Adding overrides for type names (#12026)

* fix(tests): Fix project reference for the test framework (#12053)

* fix(hub): Fix property accessibility issue (#12055)

* Fix API categories for iothub service client (#12087)

* swagger(iothub): Swagger comment changes (#12149)

* fix(iot): Regenerate iothub PL after rebase from master

* refactor(iot): Remove unnecessary custom code

This class only existed to make the DigitalTwinClient internal, but now all generated clients are internal by default

* Swagger changes for Iot Hub (#12218)

* Revert swagger back to what is currently deployed

This swagger should never be hand edited. We can update it only when service accepts the changes

* Add composite swagger file with all suggested changes for service to make

read only, required params, and comment refactors. OperationId changes will go in here, too

* Regenerate PL with the currently deployed swagger

* Update models to rename CloudToDeviceMethod and CloudToDeviceMethodResult  (#12240)

* Modules API design (#12188)

* Add IoTHub Devices subclient APIs

* Swagger changes for Client grouping (#12245)

* Add suggested type name changes to iothub swagger (#12296)

* Service Client CL and client grouping (#12323)

* Small API design comments fix

* feat(autorest): Generated clients from autorest after sync with master

* Add implementation for Devices APIs (#12611)

* (feat): Implement Modules client (#12673)

* feat(tests): Add test infrastructure and setup.ps1 for local setup (#12719)

* Add test infrastructure and setup

* Add common files, remove specific sub (#12722)

* fix(swagger): Fix IotHub swagger descriptions (#12695)

* fix(pipeline): Update setup script to call test-resources ARM template directly (#12775)

* feat(samples): Samples project skeleton (#12787)

* IoT hub service client authentication via connection string (#12731)

* feat(e2e-tests): Add initial setup for E2E tests

* feat(iot-service): Add authentication via connection string

* fix(iot-service): Fix merge conflict in infrastructure setup file (#12803)

Co-authored-by: Abhipsa Misra <[email protected]>

* feat(tests): Changes to fix tests and make sure we can run them successfully. (#12819)

* Start recording tests and add intial Session recording (#12827)

* feat(samples): Initial CREATE/DELETE sample for ModuleI (#12850)

* feat(samples): Finish Modules samples (#12989)

* feat(e2e): Devices E2E tests (#12997)

* Update the logic for ETags and preconditions (#13046)

* Fix the CI and test pipelines. (#13091)

Co-authored-by: abhipds <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Abhipsa Misra <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: vinagesh <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: timtay-microsoft <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: bikamani <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Sindhu Nagesh <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Abhipsa Misra <[email protected]>
prmathur-microsoft pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 8, 2020
* feat(hub): Creating a new feature branch with swagger and generated files

* fix(doc): Fix markdown for API design doc (#11690)

* swagger(iothub): Adding overrides for type names (#12026)

* fix(tests): Fix project reference for the test framework (#12053)

* fix(hub): Fix property accessibility issue (#12055)

* Fix API categories for iothub service client (#12087)

* swagger(iothub): Swagger comment changes (#12149)

* fix(iot): Regenerate iothub PL after rebase from master

* refactor(iot): Remove unnecessary custom code

This class only existed to make the DigitalTwinClient internal, but now all generated clients are internal by default

* Swagger changes for Iot Hub (#12218)

* Revert swagger back to what is currently deployed

This swagger should never be hand edited. We can update it only when service accepts the changes

* Add composite swagger file with all suggested changes for service to make

read only, required params, and comment refactors. OperationId changes will go in here, too

* Regenerate PL with the currently deployed swagger

* Update models to rename CloudToDeviceMethod and CloudToDeviceMethodResult  (#12240)

* Modules API design (#12188)

* Add IoTHub Devices subclient APIs

* Swagger changes for Client grouping (#12245)

* Add suggested type name changes to iothub swagger (#12296)

* Service Client CL and client grouping (#12323)

* Small API design comments fix

* feat(autorest): Generated clients from autorest after sync with master

* Add implementation for Devices APIs (#12611)

* (feat): Implement Modules client (#12673)

* feat(tests): Add test infrastructure and setup.ps1 for local setup (#12719)

* Add test infrastructure and setup

* Add common files, remove specific sub (#12722)

* fix(swagger): Fix IotHub swagger descriptions (#12695)

* fix(pipeline): Update setup script to call test-resources ARM template directly (#12775)

* feat(samples): Samples project skeleton (#12787)

* IoT hub service client authentication via connection string (#12731)

* feat(e2e-tests): Add initial setup for E2E tests

* feat(iot-service): Add authentication via connection string

* fix(iot-service): Fix merge conflict in infrastructure setup file (#12803)

Co-authored-by: Abhipsa Misra <[email protected]>

* feat(tests): Changes to fix tests and make sure we can run them successfully. (#12819)

* Start recording tests and add intial Session recording (#12827)

* feat(samples): Initial CREATE/DELETE sample for ModuleI (#12850)

* feat(samples): Finish Modules samples (#12989)

* feat(e2e): Devices E2E tests (#12997)

* Update the logic for ETags and preconditions (#13046)

* Fix the CI and test pipelines. (#13091)

Co-authored-by: abhipds <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Abhipsa Misra <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: vinagesh <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: timtay-microsoft <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: bikamani <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Sindhu Nagesh <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Abhipsa Misra <[email protected]>
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.

5 participants