add AWS_RECOMMENDED as partitional endpoint pattern #2575
Conversation
| - **Required** The pattern type to use for the partition endpoint. This value can be set to ``service_dnsSuffix`` to | ||
| use the ``https://{service}.{dnsSuffix}`` pattern or ``service_region_dnsSuffix`` to use | ||
| ``https://{service}.{region}.{dnsSuffix}``. | ||
| - **Required** The pattern type to use for the partition endpoint. This value should be set to ``aws_recommended`` in almost all cases. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we still require this to be set? We could default to using recommended
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah I don't have a strong preference. The only thing I had in mind was that it might lead to a small bug downstream in some code that expects it to always be nonnull if we miss changing it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah - I dont have a strong preference either. Its more explicit to require it and the documentation here and on the trait itself makes it clear what to use.
| - ``service_region_dnsSuffix``: ``https://{service}.{region}.{dnsSuffix}`` | ||
|
|
||
| The following example defines a partitional service that uses ``{service}.{dnsSuffix}``: | ||
| The following example defines a partitional service that uses AWS recommended patterns for each partition: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we provide documentation on what those are? At least for AWS partition. We provide a list of the "standard patterns" eg here: https://smithy.io/2.0/aws/aws-endpoints-region.html#aws-endpoints-standardregionalendpoints-trait
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's fairly complex though, and currently only captured on an internal AWS document, which I don't think is fit for the public docs. If you think we should go the full mile and put the detailed pattern cases in the docs, we can do that though
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And just adding aws partition is a little misleading since aws partition is itself nonstandard
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah thats fair - I think its reasonable to leave it unspecified here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If anyone asks, we can presumably link them to the authoritative doc for clarity :)
Background
Testing
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.