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

Integrate Bitbucket provider #36

Open
se7entyse7en opened this issue Oct 10, 2019 · 10 comments
Open

Integrate Bitbucket provider #36

se7entyse7en opened this issue Oct 10, 2019 · 10 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@se7entyse7en
Copy link
Contributor

se7entyse7en commented Oct 10, 2019

Integrate the research project we did here by fitting the unified schema described in [private] this DD.

Let's do this once #35 is closed.

@smacker smacker self-assigned this Oct 15, 2019
@smacker
Copy link
Contributor

smacker commented Oct 17, 2019

JFYI current implementation is based on my fork of go-bitbucket-v1. I have submitted the fixes to the upstream. (though maybe some of them would require some changes, the lib isn't very let's say stable and I don't know author's preferences about the development direction)

@se7entyse7en se7entyse7en added enhancement New feature or request blocked This is blocked for some reason labels Oct 22, 2019
@se7entyse7en
Copy link
Contributor Author

se7entyse7en commented Oct 22, 2019

JFYI current implementation is based on my fork of go-bitbucket-v1. I have submitted the fixes to the upstream. (though maybe some of them would require some changes, the lib isn't very let's say stable and I don't know author's preferences about the development direction)

@smacker probably you already mentioned this in some of the TFM, but I don't remember. How likely you think that would be merged? Maybe it worth having a proper fork under src-d? Especially wrt to future modifications?

@smacker
Copy link
Contributor

smacker commented Oct 22, 2019

2 out of 3 PRs are merged already. I updated the 3rd one today. Should be merged soon.

For bb-server, I think it's better to rely on that library.
For bb-cloud, we will need something else. The one I used for PoC is horrible.

@se7entyse7en
Copy link
Contributor Author

okay! thanks for the info! do you think that it would worth writing our own library for bb-cloud? Because I assume that you already looked out there and that you chose the best option already.

@smacker
Copy link
Contributor

smacker commented Oct 24, 2019

do you think that it would worth writing our own library for bb-cloud?

if by the time we start implementing integration nobody would create new lib, yes.

@se7entyse7en
Copy link
Contributor Author

Once we close this, let's have a look at [private] this.

@se7entyse7en
Copy link
Contributor Author

Also, @smacker how critical is to use the current library that you found? I mean, for demos it worked so far, so I guess that we could do it as an improvement? I'm asking because we have more incoming PoCs requiring bitbucket.

@smacker
Copy link
Contributor

smacker commented Oct 29, 2019

I don't really understand the question.
Obviously we can use all the code that was created to the date. And for the final solution, we better create our own lib to make the metadata-retrieval project more maintainable as I explained above.

@se7entyse7en
Copy link
Contributor Author

okay, yup, I was over-asking for an uber-confirmation 😅 👍

@se7entyse7en se7entyse7en removed the blocked This is blocked for some reason label Oct 30, 2019
@se7entyse7en
Copy link
Contributor Author

Move the ready and removed blocked since #35 has been closed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants