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鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

docs: correct indication of complete key from "partial" #36

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Aug 5, 2020

Conversation

aawilson
Copy link
Contributor

@aawilson aawilson commented Jun 12, 2020

Reserve_ids indicates complete_key in its typespec and in its type-checking, but says "Partial" in the description after the typespec. I also believe "use as a base for reserved IDs" is ambiguous, but I'm not familiar enough with the underlying API to know a better description since I'm not 100% sure on the behavior is supposed to be.

Thank you for opening a Pull Request! Before submitting your PR, there are a few things you can do to make sure it goes smoothly:

  • Make sure to open an issue as a bug/issue before writing your code! That way we can discuss the change, evaluate designs, and agree on the general idea
  • Ensure the tests and linter pass
  • Code coverage does not decrease (if any source code was changed)
  • Appropriate docs were updated (if necessary)

Fixes #37 馃

@googlebot
Copy link

Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project (if not, look below for help). Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

馃摑 Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign.

Once you've signed (or fixed any issues), please reply here with @googlebot I signed it! and we'll verify it.


What to do if you already signed the CLA

Individual signers
Corporate signers

鈩癸笍 Googlers: Go here for more info.

@googlebot googlebot added the cla: no This human has *not* signed the Contributor License Agreement. label Jun 12, 2020
@aawilson
Copy link
Contributor Author

@googlebot I signed it!

@googlebot
Copy link

CLAs look good, thanks!

鈩癸笍 Googlers: Go here for more info.

@googlebot googlebot added cla: yes This human has signed the Contributor License Agreement. and removed cla: no This human has *not* signed the Contributor License Agreement. labels Jun 12, 2020
@aawilson aawilson changed the title Correct indication of complete key from "partial" fix(documentation): Correct indication of complete key from "partial" Jun 15, 2020
Reserve_ids indicates complete_key in its typespec and in its type-checking, but says "Partial" in the description after the typespec. I also believe "use as a base for reserved IDs" is ambiguous, but I'm not familiar enough with the underlying API to know a better description since I'm not 100% sure on the behavior is supposed to be.
@tseaver tseaver changed the title fix(documentation): Correct indication of complete key from "partial" docs: correct indication of complete key from "partial" Aug 5, 2020
@tseaver tseaver added the kokoro:run Add this label to force Kokoro to re-run the tests. label Aug 5, 2020
@yoshi-kokoro yoshi-kokoro removed the kokoro:run Add this label to force Kokoro to re-run the tests. label Aug 5, 2020
@tseaver tseaver added the kokoro:force-run Add this label to force Kokoro to re-run the tests. label Aug 5, 2020
@yoshi-kokoro yoshi-kokoro removed the kokoro:force-run Add this label to force Kokoro to re-run the tests. label Aug 5, 2020
Copy link
Contributor

@tseaver tseaver left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks very much for the patch!

@tseaver tseaver merged commit 50ed945 into googleapis:master Aug 5, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cla: yes This human has signed the Contributor License Agreement.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Reserve_ids documentation has a typo, and implementation seems bugged
4 participants