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

Added invite type #6568

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 15, 2024
Merged

Added invite type #6568

merged 1 commit into from
May 15, 2024

Conversation

fbrettnich
Copy link
Contributor

@fbrettnich fbrettnich commented Dec 9, 2023

Added the invite type based on the OpenAPI specification and api response for guild, group and friend invites

@fbrettnich
Copy link
Contributor Author

Both additional invite types are not relevant for bots

depends on the bot... you could say that about enough other things as well

@Walledgarden
Copy link

What about moderation bots which filter out certain invite types (disallow guild invites but allow friend invites) only? This is just one out of many use cases for this option.

@quinchs
Copy link
Contributor

quinchs commented Dec 10, 2023

This PR looks great to me!

@Lulalaby You should clarify that what you say is strictly your opinion, this is data returned from an endpoint which bots most definitely use, it's useful as stated above.

@i0bs
Copy link
Contributor

i0bs commented Dec 10, 2023

The documentation proposal is fine as is. Like @quinchs said, you can access this information from a public endpoint. That's a valid enough reason to document it, regardless of whether bot developers will use it or not.

@advaith1
Copy link
Contributor

this field should be documented, but for some reason, it was previously rejected in #4334 and #4746

can we get clarification on what happened there, and can this field get documented?

@Lulalaby
Copy link
Contributor

Yeah you're right @quinchs.

Sorry for that. I was half asleep writing that.
I should've noted that this is my own opinion and I should've definitely provided the context like advaith did.

Personally I agree that it'd be nice to have documented generally, but since it got rejected a few times my hopes are not that high.

Sorry again! 🙏💕

@fbrettnich
Copy link
Contributor Author

btw it is already in the OpenAPI specification, it should also be in the API documentation

@JustinBeckwith JustinBeckwith requested review from yonilerner and removed request for yonilerner May 13, 2024 21:53
Copy link
Contributor

@JustinBeckwith JustinBeckwith left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the addition!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

7 participants