fix(AIP-133): use resource field in signature suggestion #1439
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
jskeet
approved these changes
Oct 22, 2024
slevenick
approved these changes
Oct 22, 2024
Co-authored-by: Sam Levenick <slevenick@google.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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fix the way that the expected resource field name is derived for Standard Create method_signatures. When the resource field in the request message uses a name that doesn't exactly mirror the resource type/RPC name, the previous logic suggested a method_signature including a field that didn't exist. Since this rule isn't supposed to also govern the field's name itself, just roll with it.
Also fixes the way the output type is evaluated for the resource parent/no-parent case when the response type is an Operation.
Moves the LRO test to its own case.
Addresses internal feedback http://b/372508475