AWS/Query and EC2 marshaller support. #760
Conversation
| if (queryName != null && !queryName.trim().isEmpty()) { | ||
| return queryName; | ||
| } else { | ||
| final String locationName = member.getLocationName(); | ||
| String locationName = memberShape.getListMember() != null && memberShape.isFlattened() && !protocol.equals("ec2") ? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If ec2 lists are always flattened, why are we using parent location name instead of list member location name?
| if (StringUtils.isNotBlank(shapeModel.getMarshaller().getTarget())) { | ||
| initializationCodeBlockBuilder.add(".operationIdentifier($S)", shapeModel.getMarshaller().getTarget()) | ||
| .add(".apiVersion($S)", metadata.getApiVersion()) | ||
| .add(".serviceName($S)", metadata.getServiceName()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we move the apiVersion and serviceName outside this if block. We need service name always to create the Default request.
| @@ -130,6 +125,24 @@ private static MarshallerRegistry createMarshallerRegistry() { | |||
| .build(); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| private static Map<MarshallLocation, TimestampFormatTrait.Format> getDefaultTimestampFormats() { | |||
| Map<MarshallLocation, TimestampFormatTrait.Format> formats = new HashMap<>(); | |||
| formats.put(MarshallLocation.HEADER, TimestampFormatTrait.Format.ISO_8601); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Header default format is rfc822
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Our protocol tests have ISO for marshalling and RFC822 for unmarshalling, not sure why. Did a search and no service is currently using timestamps in input headers so we may just have this wrong in our tests. I'll create a task to investigate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, for v1, we have to keep using iso as default for header marshalling for backwards compatibility reason. For v2, I think we can make it right and keep the same behavior as other SDKs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we can change it to Rfc822. Or you can add a TODO to investigate
| .marshaller(MarshallingType.NULL, SimpleTypeQueryMarshaller.NULL) | ||
| .marshaller(MarshallingType.MAP, new MapMarshaller()) | ||
| .marshaller(MarshallingType.LIST, new ListMarshaller()) | ||
| .marshaller(MarshallingType.SDK_POJO, (req, path, val, sdkField) -> doMarshall(path, req, val)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need a BigDecimal marshalling type?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nah we have that as a customization for budgets. We actually don't support the "true" big decimal type as defined in the aws service framework. It's modeled as a string in budgets.
| import org.junit.Test; | ||
| import software.amazon.awssdk.utils.StringInputStream; | ||
|
|
||
| public class XmlDomParserTest { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you also add a test case where multiple top elements have same member name.
|
Overall Lgtm. Are there other changes you will included in this PR? If not, I can approve the PR |
shorea
force-pushed
the
shorea-marshaller-phase-two
branch
from
b1147f0 to
58ff306
Compare
Running through the integ tests right now and making small tweaks based on that. I'll merge from master after that's done and will ask for a ship it then. |
shorea
force-pushed
the
shorea-marshaller-phase-two
branch
from
58ff306 to
4289ccf
Compare
shorea
force-pushed
the
shorea-marshaller-phase-two
branch
from
4289ccf to
ebf23e9
Compare
| @@ -189,13 +190,14 @@ public void tearDown() throws Exception { | |||
| */ | |||
| @Test | |||
| public void testLoadBalancerInstanceOperations() throws Exception { | |||
| BasicConfigurator.configure(); | |||
…49e11238 Pull request: release <- staging/58b3f082-0e5e-44f5-91e7-a4da49e11238
No description provided.