client/container_exec: Wrap options and result#51262
Conversation
c0b1502 to
cecdf29
Compare
cecdf29 to
c54ece9
Compare
| _, err = client.ContainerExecCreate(context.Background(), "container_id", ExecCreateOptions{}) | ||
| _, err = client.ContainerExecCreate(context.Background(), "container_id", ContainerExecCreateOptions{}) | ||
| assert.Check(t, is.ErrorType(err, cerrdefs.IsInternal)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Was on the fence on renaming ExecCreateOptions to ContainerExecCreateOptions - considering if we should go the reverse, and make Exec its own thing (not ContainerXXX); WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah I think it could work too.. But whatever we choose we should match the prefix of the option/result struct with the operation name.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, perhaps ExecCreate instead of ContainerExecCreate would work; it's shorter as well, and matches that we have the ExecClient interface defined .. which was slightly to split things a bit.
Let me know what you think
c9f6be6 to
0e78a5c
Compare
|
Oh! We should probably squash the commits, as there's some types that were renamed, and back; let me do so (and set the |
Signed-off-by: Paweł Gronowski <pawel.gronowski@docker.com>
0e78a5c to
94ab385
Compare
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.