Skip to content

Conversation

@clsung
Copy link
Contributor

@clsung clsung commented May 14, 2019

  • not like Add support for message quota consumption. #149, I'll suggest make quota's query code in the same Call()
    1 quota/consumption is placed under quota/
    2 developer, when calling quota functions, only need to take care
    of one invoker aka GetMessageQuotaCall and one response aka MessageQuotaResponse
    3 in MessageQuotaResponse, totalUsage is sufficient to distinguish from quota (Value)
  • final decision is left to repo commiters

- not like line#149, I'll suggest make quota's query code in the same Call()
  1 quota/consumption is placed under quota/
  2 developer, when calling quota functions, only need to take care
    of one invoker aka GetMessageQuotaCall and one response aka MessageQuotaResponse
- final decision is left to repo commiters
@clsung clsung changed the title Alternative to implement #152. Alternative to implement #152, quota consumption. May 14, 2019
@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented May 14, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #153 into master will increase coverage by 0.07%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #153      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   72.11%   72.19%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files          23       23              
  Lines        1757     1762       +5     
==========================================
+ Hits         1267     1272       +5     
  Misses        413      413              
  Partials       77       77
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
linebot/response.go 68.1% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
linebot/client.go 74.32% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
linebot/get_quota.go 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update e039956...4b19b64. Read the comment docs.

@kkdai
Copy link
Member

kkdai commented May 15, 2019

Agree, LGTM.

@tkgauri
Copy link
Contributor

tkgauri commented May 17, 2019

#156

@k2wanko k2wanko self-requested a review May 17, 2019 07:34
@k2wanko k2wanko merged commit 4b19b64 into line:master May 17, 2019
@clsung clsung deleted the consumption branch December 29, 2019 11:25
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants