Provide an interface for the ResiliencePipelineProvider #1652

Activity

1. martincostello commented on Sep 27, 2023

   

   martincostello

   on Sep 27, 2023

   Last edited by martincostello

   Member

   More actions

   Have you taken a look at our new Polly v8 documentation for testing?

   Does that and/or the Polly.Testing package help with what you're trying to achieve?

   We're hours away from shipping Polly 8.0.0 and are basically code complete at this point, so I'm not sure at this point we'd delay to go through API review to consider adding new interfaces (we've avoided new interfaces for most (all?) of the new API surface).

   There shouldn't be anything in the current design that prevents you from using DI and injecting things, they're just abstract classes instead of interfaces, and we have the empty builder you can use that is the successor to a no-op policy.
2. martincostello

   added

   feature suggestion

   on Sep 27, 2023
3. SeanFarrow commented on Sep 27, 2023

   

   SeanFarrow

   on Sep 27, 2023 via email

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   I think I can do what I need given that the methods in the ResiliencePipelineProvider are virtual or abstract. If an interface isn’t an option (and it doesn’t make much sense having looked at this further), it may be worth adding something to the testing docs (post V8) to show how to mock out the ResiliencePipelineProvider as I can see people wanting to do this particularly when they are migrating from using the registry interfaces. From: Martin Costello ***@***.***> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 10:00 PM To: App-vNext/Polly ***@***.***> Cc: Sean Farrow ***@***.***>; Author ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [App-vNext/Polly] Provide an interface for the ResiliencePipelineProvider (Issue #1652) Have you taken a look at our new Polly v8 documentation for testing<#1651>? Does that and/or the Polly.Testing package help with what you're trying to achieve. We're hours away from shipping Polly 8.0.0 and are basically code complete at this point, so I'm not sure at this point we'd delay to go through API review to consider adding new interfaces (we've avoided new interfaces for most (all?) of the new API surface). There shouldn't be anything in the current design that prevents you from using DI and injecting things, they're just abstract classes instead of interfaces, and we have the empty builder you can use that is the successor to a no-op policy. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#1652 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AALDK7UHNQGPX4TX7LDXJLLX4SHV5ANCNFSM6AAAAAA5J6HYZU>. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>
4. martincostello commented on Sep 28, 2023

   

   martincostello

   on Sep 28, 2023

   Member

   More actions

   it may be worth adding something to the testing docs (post V8) to show how to mock out the ResiliencePipelineProvider as I can see people wanting to do this particularly when they are migrating from using the registry interfaces.

   @martintmk @peter-csala Thoughts on the above?
5. peter-csala commented on Sep 28, 2023

   

   peter-csala

   on Sep 28, 2023

   Contributor

   More actions

   it may be worth adding something to the testing docs (post V8) to show how to mock out the ResiliencePipelineProvider as I can see people wanting to do this particularly when they are migrating from using the registry interfaces.

   @martintmk @peter-csala Thoughts on the above?

   Hey @SeanFarrow could you please share with us the related V7 code that you would like to migrate/port to V8?

   So, basically we would like to understand what exactly do you want to achieve with the new API.
6. SeanFarrow commented on Sep 28, 2023

   

   SeanFarrow

   on Sep 28, 2023 via email

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   Essentially, what I’m now doing is moving all uses of the IPolicyRegistry (and derived interfaces) to the new pipeline implementation. This is definitely doable, but I wonder whether it would be worth adding something to the docs to show how this is done (if it doesn’t already exist) and how to use these new base classes in testing. From: peter-csala ***@***.***> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 10:18 AM To: App-vNext/Polly ***@***.***> Cc: Sean Farrow ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [App-vNext/Polly] Provide an interface for the ResiliencePipelineProvider (Issue #1652) it may be worth adding something to the testing docs (post V8) to show how to mock out the ResiliencePipelineProvider as I can see people wanting to do this particularly when they are migrating from using the registry interfaces. @martintmk<https://github.com/martintmk> @peter-csala<https://github.com/peter-csala> Thoughts on the above? Hey @SeanFarrow<https://github.com/SeanFarrow> could you please share with us the related V7 code that you would like to migrate/port to V8? So, basically we would like to understand what exactly do you want to achieve with the new API. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#1652 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AALDK7X2AWXIRICHKLUWFDDX4U6C3ANCNFSM6AAAAAA5J6HYZU>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
7. martintmk commented on Sep 29, 2023

   

   martintmk

   on Sep 29, 2023

   Contributor

   More actions

   This is definitely doable, but I wonder whether it would be worth adding something to the docs to show how this is done (if it doesn’t already exist) and how to use these new base classes in testing.

   I think so. Mocking the ResiliencePipelineProvider is something that should be encouraged. I'll prepare some docs.

   👍React with 👍1Reacted by Martin Costello
8. martintmk

   closed this as completedin #1662on Sep 29, 2023