docs(protocol): clarify id field is not optional #523
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
enisdenjo
reviewed
Nov 29, 2023
Co-authored-by: Denis Badurina <badurinadenis@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Denis Badurina <badurinadenis@gmail.com>
enisdenjo
approved these changes
Nov 29, 2023
|
Thank you very much! |
|
@enisdenjo Thank you! Should I be concerned about the failing check for this PR? |
|
Nope, it's just Deno acting up (it happens from time to time). 😅 |
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 5.14.3 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR aims to clarify the section of the protocol which states that the
idfield is optional even though this field is either required or not present as per the type definitions. (Also discussed in #340)At first, I wanted to mention specifically that
Subscribe,Next,Error, andCompletemessage types needs to have theidfield. However, the sentence that needs to be clarified is in the "Communication" section which comes before the explanation of the message types. So, I used the term "Messages corresponding to operations" to refer to those message types.Though, I am not sure if this sentence sounds clear enough. I am happy to accept any improvements for wording.