Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

docs: fix the type and docs of Operation.message field #603

Conversation

char0n
Copy link
Collaborator

@char0n char0n commented Aug 4, 2021

Refs #588

@sonarcloud
Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented Aug 4, 2021

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

No Coverage information No Coverage information
No Duplication information No Duplication information

@fmvilas fmvilas added the ✏️ Editorial PR is non-normative or does not influence implementation label Aug 4, 2021
char0n added a commit to swagger-api/apidom that referenced this pull request Aug 23, 2021
char0n added a commit to swagger-api/apidom that referenced this pull request Aug 24, 2021
Co-authored-by: frantuma <frantuma@yahoo.com>

Refs #543
Refs asyncapi/spec#603
spec/asyncapi.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Fran Méndez <fmvilas@gmail.com>
@sonarcloud
Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented Sep 15, 2021

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

No Coverage information No Coverage information
No Duplication information No Duplication information

@char0n char0n changed the title docs(spec): fix the type and decs of Operation.message field docs(spec): fix the type and docs of Operation.message field Oct 4, 2021
@char0n
Copy link
Collaborator Author

char0n commented Oct 4, 2021

All requested changes here have been processed.

@char0n
Copy link
Collaborator Author

char0n commented Dec 10, 2021

Pinging here. Is there anything I can do to move this PR forward?

@derberg
Copy link
Member

derberg commented Dec 21, 2021

@char0n it renders strange
Screenshot 2021-12-21 at 18 24 20

@char0n
Copy link
Collaborator Author

char0n commented Dec 21, 2021

@derberg can you be more specific what's strange about it? This type signature reflects exactly what the field allows in AsyncAPI 2.2.0 spec. I agree it looks complex, but that's what spec currently allows.

Here a comment from @fmvilas that confirms it: #588 (comment)

@derberg
Copy link
Member

derberg commented Dec 22, 2021

oh crap, you are right, immediately when I look at it, my brain tells me that formatting is broken, but you are rights, it is actually correct 😅

@fmvilas you requested changes so you need to approve to get it merged

@sonarcloud
Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented Dec 22, 2021

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

No Coverage information No Coverage information
0.0% 0.0% Duplication

@derberg derberg requested a review from fmvilas December 27, 2021 11:06
@fmvilas fmvilas changed the title docs(spec): fix the type and docs of Operation.message field docs: fix the type and docs of Operation.message field Jan 3, 2022
@fmvilas fmvilas changed the base branch from master to 2022-01-release January 3, 2022 18:06
@fmvilas
Copy link
Member

fmvilas commented Jan 3, 2022

/rtm

@asyncapi-bot asyncapi-bot merged commit bd63cfb into asyncapi:2022-01-release Jan 3, 2022
@asyncapi-bot
Copy link
Contributor

🎉 This PR is included in version 2.3.0-2022-01-release.2 🎉

The release is available on GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
✏️ Editorial PR is non-normative or does not influence implementation ready-to-merge released on @2022-01-release
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants