Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.33%. Comparing base(378a836) to head(cd9cfa8).

@@           Coverage Diff           @@##             main    #3109   +/-   ##=======================================  Coverage   97.32%   97.33%           =======================================  Files          98       98             Lines        6057     6073   +16     =======================================+ Hits         5895     5911   +16  Misses        162      162

Thanks a lot for your contribution@zapp42! If you don't mind I'd wait until@igorp-collabora's#3083 is merged (it's a big one) to avoid too many rebases on the other PR.

Once that's merged I'll propose a few tiny changes here to align with the new typing.

Tests would be great (even if simple functional ones) but we can make a follow-up, no problem!

@zapp42 would you be able to rebase this now?

@zapp42 after the#3083 the RESTManager is now generic and mixins are subclasses. This means the class definition instead of:

class ServiceAccountManager(CreateMixin, ListMixin, RESTManager):class GroupServiceAccountAccessTokenManager(CreateMixin, RotateMixin, RESTManager):

Should be:

class ServiceAccountManager(CreateMixin[ServiceAccount], ListMixin[ServiceAccount]):class GroupServiceAccountAccessTokenManager(CreateMixin[GroupServiceAccountAccessToken], RotateMixin[GroupServiceAccountAccessToken]):

@igorp-collabora I will give it a shot over the weekend.

Note: I struggled with the group service account access token api. I did not find another example in the code base where you have this kind of nested objects (group -> service_account -> access_token). It is currently not hooked up in the API, but it works in the cli tool.

A hint for adding the group service account access token api is appreciated.

Note: I struggled with the group service account access token api. I did not find another example in the code base where you have this kind of nested objects (group -> service_account -> access_token).

The RESTObject can have managers defined in its body. For example, Project object has a bunch of managers defined:

@igorp-collabora Thank you. I actually tried this before, but I messed up the _from_parent_attrs definition. Now it works as expected.

This is great!@zapp42 would it be possible to add some documentation and functional tests? Happy to help support this.

@SachinKSingh28 Hi, sorry, I forgot to check for comments here. What do you need?