Added Group refs
#37
Added Group refs
#37
Conversation
| + Body | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| ``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why add this section at all?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To make it clear that an empty body is returned. How could this be done better?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would leave it out, but not sure
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I could add a line in the comment section about this, maybe?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The optional description section for the response. I could just say, in instances like this, 'There is no body'
|
In cases of default values: should I PR go-ipfs with a default value, too? @whyrusleeping @diasdavid |
If there is a default value to be written on the API spec, I would assume that is already part of go-ipfs knowledge, however, if not, definitely PR or open a issue about it.
Because it is a CLI thing, not part of the HTTP API
Which kind of argument? |
|
As for the rest, LGTM. Note: it would be really cool if we standardized on the IPFS Hashes format, sometimes it has to be multihash (/ipfs/HASH) others is just the hash, it can be annoying. |
|
Default values added here: ipfs/kubo#2582. For now, going to publish as is. |
|
Kind of argument: failed to replicate. Removed bug notice. Also removed format. |
Bugs:
- [ ] The `format` option has no effect on the output.
- [ ] If an argument is included, an `invalid ipfs paths ref` error is thrown,
although there is no possible valid ipfs paths ref.
RichardLitt
force-pushed
the
feature/refs
branch
from
764ce54
to
57ffc5a
Compare
Bugs:
formatoption has no effect on the output.invalid ipfs paths referror is thrown,although there is no possible valid ipfs paths ref.