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

feat: Add client for Notebook & Notebook Execution APIs. #87

Open
wants to merge 13 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ganesh-nithin
Copy link

@ganesh-nithin ganesh-nithin commented Dec 11, 2024

What does this Pull Request accomplish?

This PR adds client methods for Notebook Service and Notebook Execution Service endpoints with integration tests for these endpoints

Why should this Pull Request be merged?

This notebook client will improve user interactivity with those Notebook Service and Notebook Execution Service endpoints.

What testing has been done?

Automated integration tests are included.

API Link: Swagger-link

@ganesh-nithin ganesh-nithin changed the title feat: Add client for Notebook & Notebook Execution services. feat: Add client for Notebook & Notebook Execution APIs. Dec 11, 2024
@ganesh-nithin ganesh-nithin marked this pull request as ready for review December 12, 2024 07:56
@santhoshramaraj santhoshramaraj added the enhancement New feature or request label Dec 16, 2024
@ChrisStrykesAgain
Copy link

In the interest of SLS compatibility, would it make sense to implement this using the webapp service instead of the Notebook service? If you did it in a base class that this inherited from, that could also set the stage for WebVI/SPAs interactions.

@adamarnesen
Copy link
Member

In the interest of SLS compatibility, would it make sense to implement this using the webapp service instead of the Notebook service? If you did it in a base class that this inherited from, that could also set the stage for WebVI/SPAs interactions.

I think that this is just trying to add a good wrapper on the HTTP APIs for notebook execution. I think probably the compatibility layer with SLS would be on top of these APIs.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants