Refactor providers to remove duplicate implementations#1876
Conversation
achals
requested review from
a team,
adchia,
felixwang9817,
tsotnet and
woop
as code owners
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1876 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 83.96% 83.81% -0.16%
==========================================
Files 95 96 +1
Lines 7392 7316 -76
==========================================
- Hits 6207 6132 -75
+ Misses 1185 1184 -1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
Would you mind adding a description to your PR please? |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: achals, adchia The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
achals
force-pushed
the
achal/remove-dupe-providers
branch
from
1f32026 to
7cacc3c
Compare
|
New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed. |
achals
force-pushed
the
achal/remove-dupe-providers
branch
from
7cacc3c to
a2c0e9d
Compare
Signed-off-by: Achal Shah <achals@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Achal Shah <achals@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Achal Shah <achals@gmail.com>
achals
force-pushed
the
achal/remove-dupe-providers
branch
from
a2c0e9d to
99ec0e2
Compare
Signed-off-by: Achal Shah <achals@gmail.com>
Done |
5 participants
Signed-off-by: Achal Shah achals@gmail.com
What this PR does / why we need it:
Currently, the AWS, GCP and Local providers have the exact same implementation - and the implementation only defers actual business logic of setting up infrastructure and materializing data to the offline/online store interfaces.
This is confusing for users, and is unnecessary code to maintain. Instead, this PR refactors the implementations into a single implementation, with a dummy subclass for the 3 existing providers for backwards compatibility.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: