Skip to content

refactor(go): Updated handler to output_executable_name for go workflows #79

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 11, 2019

Conversation

jfuss
Copy link
Contributor

@jfuss jfuss commented Feb 8, 2019

Issue #, if available:

Description of changes:

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

Copy link
Contributor

@sriram-mv sriram-mv left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Copy link
Contributor

@sanathkr sanathkr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

nit pick. feel free to disagree

@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ def __init__(self,
**kwargs)

options = kwargs["options"] if "options" in kwargs else {}
handler = options.get("handler", None)
handler = options.get("output_executable_name", None)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry for the nitpick. "output" doesn't convey as much. Can we call it "function_executable_name" or "lambda_executable_name" or something more specific?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

function_executable_name communicates this builder is only for building functions. When we start supporting layers, this may not be true anymore. I am ok with lambda_executable_name but I think artifact_executable_name is clearer (stolen from what you suggested in the SAM CLI Go Mod PR).

@jfuss jfuss merged commit 29f254b into aws:develop Feb 11, 2019
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.

3 participants