Improve readability #582
Merged
Improve readability #582
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
richfab
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 4, 2024
* Improve readability (#582) * Improve readability * replace < and > with < and > for display. * all fields have a definition --------- Co-authored-by: Tom <1955774+tdelmas@users.noreply.github.com> * Minor rephrasings * Remove duplicate of Object definition * Make field hierarchy explicit * Adds missing array sub-types * Fix type Array<ID> * Update fiedl descriptions for Array<ID> * Maintain field types alphabetical order --------- Co-authored-by: Tom <1955774+tdelmas@users.noreply.github.com>
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Original PR from @tdelmas: #576
What problem does your proposal solve? Please begin with the relevant issue number. If there is no existing issue, please also describe alternative solutions you have considered.
This PR tries to improve the readability of some points:
(name of the object)is defined".Those make the specification too much verbose, thus blurs the important things. For example, when a field is "Conditionally REQUIRED", it's important to clearly understand why, and having too many fields defined as such without a reason make the specification unnecessarily complicated
What is the proposal?
Is this a breaking change?