add support for the simulators endpoint #2066
Conversation
| simulators = cognite_client.simulators.list() | ||
| simulator_exists = len(list(filter(lambda x: x.external_id == simulator_external_id, simulators))) > 0 | ||
| if not simulator_exists: | ||
| cognite_client.post( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We won't have a simulator.create function in the sdk
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2066 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.50% 90.59% +0.09%
==========================================
Files 141 145 +4
Lines 22533 22802 +269
==========================================
+ Hits 20393 20657 +264
- Misses 2140 2145 +5
|
tests/tests_integration/test_api/test_simulators/test_simulators.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| @@ -0,0 +1,216 @@ | |||
| # This file contains the data used to seed the test environment for the simulator tests | |||
|
|
|||
| data_set_id = 1521375514069 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was a comment about having this in a fixture. The reason we have it here as a common variable is that we need it as part of the resources being seeded in this file (simulator integration) and models and routines in the other pr.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't understand this, but feel free to leave it as is - but, please add a comment on why it is necessary - or why it is just temporarily needed.
Can you change it to a data set external id? Then do lookup in a fixture? (That would make running the test suite against different CDF projects much simpler. Note also that we are going to change the test project next year, as using a staging cluster is not ideal for test flakyness 😅 )
| List simulators: | ||
|
|
||
| >>> from cognite.client import CogniteClient | ||
| >>> client = CogniteClient() | ||
| >>> res = client.simulators.list() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you planning to add __call__ & __iter__? I do think almost all our APIs support the "iterative" approach.
| return super().dump(camel_case=camel_case) | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| class SimulatorIntegrationWrite(SimulatorIntegrationCore): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why are we adding a write-class if the API only exposes filter and delete endpoints?
| license_status: str | None = None, | ||
| simulator_version: str | None = None, | ||
| license_last_checked_time: int | None = None, | ||
| connector_status: str | None = None, | ||
| connector_status_updated_time: int | None = None, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are all these valid for the write-version?
| return self | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| class SimulatorIntegration(SimulatorIntegrationCore): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Check out my comments on class Simulator
| @@ -0,0 +1,216 @@ | |||
| # This file contains the data used to seed the test environment for the simulator tests | |||
|
|
|||
| data_set_id = 1521375514069 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree this should no be hardcoded as an internal id. it should be an external id + lookup
Description
Added the
/simulatorsendpoint to the SDK. This is the first PR coming from the split of this big PR: https://github.com/cognitedata/cognite-sdk-python/pull/2006/filesAdds support for the following Resource:
Checklist:
If a new method has been added it should be referenced in cognite.rst in order to generate docs based on its docstring.