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

Pagination Support #20

Open
rdeutz opened this issue Nov 23, 2015 · 2 comments
Open

Pagination Support #20

rdeutz opened this issue Nov 23, 2015 · 2 comments

Comments

@rdeutz
Copy link

rdeutz commented Nov 23, 2015

That's more a question to the maintainer(s). Any plans to implements pagination or should this be handled outside the package? At least we need to implement a way to get the headers. Some guidance would be great, I need pagination in one of my projects and have it implemented, but it can't be done without a B/C break. Form what I can see in the 2.0-branch it is still not possible to paginate the results. So the options I see are:

  1. just return to response object and let the outside class handle pagination
  2. implement a pagination class and return body and pagination object

Either way is fine, if I know what is the preference I could work on a PR.

@mbabker
Copy link
Contributor

mbabker commented Nov 23, 2015

#19 shows how easy it is to make the change (actually unless something isn't using that processResponse method it's already 100% done), the long part is in changing the unit test infrastructure.

FWIW I've taken the same type of approach I proposed on #19 in my own package (see BabDev/Transifex-API@1.x...master for the changes, including how to DRY out the duplicated unit test logic).

I've gone ahead and restored the Return-Response branch that RFC was based on. IMO that is the quickest route to make available the data that's being stripped out with the current return structure.

@rdeutz
Copy link
Author

rdeutz commented Nov 23, 2015

ok, so the answer is: 1)

and let the outside class handle pagination. Good I can check the unit tests.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants