Closed ahsonkhan closed 2 weeks ago
I believe that the vast majority of them apply to codegen and are not a result of actual developer work, so they should be taken as feedback on codegen.
Thank you for sharing the feedback! Some of these are known codegen bugs or limitations. I will turn the others into tracking work items. Most of these are valid questions, and I believe more questions and feedback will come up as we iterate through the specifics. My next steps are to use hero scenario samples to drive the targeted discussion.
Several of the elements of feedback (the use of the "Key" structure for example) are elements that may be in the appconfiguration typespec, but it is worth considering renaming them in customizations since they are REALLY generic.
100% agreed. That is part of the plan for next steps, which is to identify where the generated models, as specified, don't work, and override them with C++ specific customizations within the client.tsp
:
https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-cpp/issues/6183
@LarryOsterman I have addressed your blocking feedback and filed work items for the rest of the codegen/typespec/guidelines related issues. Do you have any other blocking feedback?
We'll be reviewing the API surface in more depth via an APIView, in the near future, using samples to drive models/method changes, and iterate.
For now, I would like to get this snapshot checked-in to build on top of.
API change check
APIView has identified API level changes in this PR and created following API reviews.
Part of https://github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-cpp/issues/1010
The goal of this PR is to check-in a package skeleton, laying out files on disk as expected, and establish a baseline based on what the typespec based generator is currently emitting. It isn't expected to be perfect or beta ready, but important to check-in to iterate on top of.
From a review perspective, what I am looking for is the following: 1) Are the various CMakeLists.txt and vcpkg files correct? 2) Is the package name, service name, and folder location as we'd expect? 3) Any feedback on how the files are laid out on disk. 4) Is the CI setup as we'd expect?
The current API shape of the generated client is very much a WIP, and will evolve based on samples and what we expect the shape to be. Hence, it isn't valuable to review the API surface just yet, as part of this PR.
There is related work needed to be done in the emitter, and improvements to the template project folder based on the findings of this exercise. Those are outside the scope of this PR and will be tracked by separate issues.
Here are the hand-written steps taken, using the template project and the generated AppConfig client source files for bootstrapping, including known TODOs and TBD decisions:
1) Start by copying the template project folder
_TEMPLATE_
with_DATA_APPCONFIGURATION_
(in both files)