Paginator definitions for CostExplorer API

[thomasklemm]

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

1. To make sure we include your contribution in the release notes, please make sure to add description entry for your changes in the "unreleased changes" section of the CHANGELOG.md file (at corresponding gem). For the description entry, please make sure it lives in one line and starts with Feature or Issue in the correct format.

2. For generated code changes, please checkout below instructions first:
   https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-ruby/blob/version-3/CONTRIBUTING.md

Thank you for your contribution!

[mullermp]

Thanks for opening a pull request. Unfortunately these need to be merged upstream by the service team. I can inform them of the work you've done and they will prioritize this accordingly.

V1413840028

[pas256]

I was just bitten by this. I suggest changing the documentation to not lie to developers

... change it to "most" not "every".

[thomasklemm]

@mullermp Could you check the status of the ticket you opened to get these changes merged upstream? Still need to use and frequently rebase this fork to actually have cost explorer API pagination work correctly.

If you'd like to use this fork @pas256:

# Gemfilegem"aws-sdk-costexplorer",github: "thomasklemm/aws-sdk-ruby",glob: "gems/aws-sdk-costexplorer/*.gemspec",branch: "feat/paginator-definitions-for-cost-explorer-api"

[mullermp]

I believe @jterapin opened the internal ticket. I agree though, this is getting ridiculous and is poor customer obsession from the service team. Adding the pagination traits to the model and releasing it is not complex work. We will forward along your frustration, again.

[thomasklemm]

Sorry to be asking again about this, do you have any news @mullermp@jterapin? The forked gem just takes quite a bit longer to install from this monorepo than a published gem, so it's quite a bit annoying. Would be amazing if you could get this solved upstream! Thanks in advance!

[jterapin]

I'm so sorry about this. ☹️

The service teams has not prioritized the work yet but what I can do now is to forward your feedback to them and voice the inconsistency between the service api and the outdated service model. I will circle back if I hear anything back.

[pas256]

Thanks @jterapin, we appreciate it. Please be sure to use a stern font and a frowning emoji when you give them the feedback.

[thomasklemm]

Thanks for following up @jterapin!

[mullermp]

The biggest issue we are running into is that apparently this service model is composed of 4 big teams. We've gotten a commitment from one team to add pagination to their APIs but we are working on getting the other three. I'm just as frustrated as you about this.

[mullermp]

By chance do you have premium support?

[jterapin]

As mullermp mentioned above, the service model is broken down to few different teams so these updates will come in separate pieces. In addition to the committed team above, we have another team that is close to committing.

I'm following up with them today and then, the last two teams ... I'm still working on them. I will keep y'all updated.