add SimpleOffsetPaginator #48
Merged
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
|
Fixes #41 |
|
Looks pretty straightforward. Would you mind adding this to the documentation? |
Sure thing, added some details to the README. Looks like my linter removed some trailing whitespace which makes the diff larger. Let me know if you don't want that in the PR and I can redo without the lint fixes |
jlloyd-widen
approved these changes
Jun 17, 2024
|
My tap is continually extracting the same data. I am using this paginator, has anyone encountered this issue? |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hey there,
I'm interacting with an API that has a slightly different pagination scheme than any of the provided options and thought I would upstream my patch in case it's useful for anyone else.
The paginator is very simple, meant to be used with an API endpoint that returns a JSON array as the top-level object rather than a JSON object with pagination fields. Instead of inspecting fields/headers to determine whether to fetch a new page, we instead compare against the number of returned records.
Definitely open to feedback on the name of the pagination scheme!