Mark content decached events with a published timestamp

[tonytw1]

What does this change?

Allows consumers to make informed decisions about older messages.
ie. This happened a week ago; I don't need to be retry it so aggressively or I can drop it.

• Optional for backwards compatiblity

• Choose not to use the fill CapiDateTime; these events aren't really about CAPI; it's what the crier package does; avoids cross package linkage.

• published field name could have been dateTime (crier) or firstPublished etc. published seems the simplest descriptive verb.

How to test

How can we measure success?

Have we considered potential risks?

Images

Accessibility

• Tested with screen reader
• Navigable with keyboard
• Colour contrast passed
• The change doesn't use only colour to convey meaning

[davidfurey]

I'm concerned that published could be confused with the time the article was published. There seems to be a convention of prefixing event or content to field names to avoid ambiguity. Perhaps eventPublished or eventTimestamp would be clearer?

[tonytw1]

I'm concerned that published could be confused with the time the article was published. There seems to be a convention of prefixing event or content to field names to avoid ambiguity. Perhaps eventPublished or eventTimestamp would be clearer?

eventPublished is fine.