Remove @BetaApi annotations for streaming and LRO #704
Remove @BetaApi annotations for streaming and LRO #704
Conversation
PTAL |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #704 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 75.46% 75.46%
Complexity 1037 1037
=========================================
Files 196 196
Lines 4675 4675
Branches 363 363
=========================================
Hits 3528 3528
Misses 986 986
Partials 161 161
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
1 similar comment
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #704 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 75.46% 75.46%
Complexity 1037 1037
=========================================
Files 196 196
Lines 4675 4675
Branches 363 363
=========================================
Hits 3528 3528
Misses 986 986
Partials 161 161
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In General LGTM, but @igorbernstein2 should know better about streaming portion. I'm also afraid that some of the replaced @BetaApi
annotations instead of being removed should be replaced with either @InternalApi
or @InternalExtensionOnly
.
@@ -65,7 +65,6 @@ | |||
import javax.annotation.Nonnull; | |||
|
|||
/** Class with utility methods to create grpc-based direct callables. */ | |||
@BetaApi("The surface for use by generated code is not stable yet and may change in the future.") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why is this removed?
note: stubs and grpccallablefactory should be unmarked BetaApi |
@andreamlin, what's the status of this PR? Is it ready to go from your perspective? |
I asked her to wait on merging it. It removes BetaApi labels from surfaces that I would like to change:
I havent had a chance to work on these yet. Is there any rush to strip these labels? |
It would be great if this PR could move forward, one way or another, since this PR is almost 2 months old. is there anything in this PR that is mergable? If not, I think that we ought to close this. |
I can close this and turn it into an issue. @igorbernstein2 are there github issues associated with your FRs that I can link to? |
This seems to have been stuck for months. Should we close it? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we finish this one up?
I don't think this needs to be blocked anymore. I think I can get what I need by simply using this: #891 |
I'm closing for now since it appears to be out of date. reopen if you wish to continue work. The associated issue is still open. |
As part of #702