fix: Add optional purpose enum to bundle creation callback. #50
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Ramon Montoya Vozmediano <1171039+rmv@users.noreply.github.com>
|
NB: this will fail until aws-deadline/deadline-cloud#94 is in. |
agerveshi
approved these changes
Nov 13, 2023
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What was the problem/requirement? (What/Why)
Make Nuke submitter compatible with new purpose argument in job bundle creation callback.
What was the solution? (How)
Import the type and add the optional argument.
What is the impact of this change?
Make submitter compatible with additional deadline-cloud changes.
How was this change tested?
Tests pass and it compiles (requires changes in aws-deadline/deadline-cloud#94
Did you run the "Job Bundle Output Tests"? If not, why not? If so, paste the test results here.
Minor change
Was this change documented?
No
Is this a breaking change?
No