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

Refactored QLDB code examples #558

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 30, 2021
Merged

Refactored QLDB code examples #558

merged 2 commits into from
Jun 30, 2021

Conversation

Doug-AWS
Copy link
Contributor

Issue #, if available:

Description of changes:

  • Refactored QLDB code examples to use common example pattern
  • Re-ordered crates in Cargo.toml

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

let result = client
.send_command()
.start_session(StartSessionRequest::builder().ledger_name(ledger).build())
.send()
.await?;
.await
.expect("Could not start a session");
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we could probably be leaning towards ? over .expect(). In general, we should be leading customers away from code that will panic

@rcoh rcoh enabled auto-merge (squash) June 30, 2021 19:01
@rcoh rcoh changed the base branch from main to doc-refactor June 30, 2021 19:07
@rcoh rcoh disabled auto-merge June 30, 2021 19:07
@rcoh rcoh merged commit 0a16d96 into doc-refactor Jun 30, 2021
@rcoh rcoh deleted the doug-refactor-qldb branch June 30, 2021 19:07
rcoh pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 30, 2021
* Refactored QLDB code examples to use common example pattern; re-ordered crates in Cargo.toml

* Updated QLDB helloworld code example to use ? instead of expect()
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants