This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 16, 2023. It is now read-only.
Accept arbitrary streaming client configuration#223
Merged
Conversation
sayar
approved these changes
Jan 31, 2019
c-w
force-pushed
the
fix-type-definition
branch
from
ae2c440 to
5581c31
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Previously, the type definition for the streaming client interface specified a string-string dictionary. However, arbitrary json inputs are supported. This change fixes the type definition and related tooling.
All Submissions:
Have you followed the guidelines in our Contributing document?
Have you checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same update/change?
Does your PR follow our Code of Conduct?
Have you added an explanation of what your changes do and why you'd like us to include them?
Does each method or function "do one thing well"? Reviewers may recommend methods be split up for maintainability and testability.
Is this code designed to be testable?
Is the code documented well?
Does your submission pass existing tests (or update existing tests with documentation regarding the change)?
Have you added tests to cover your changes?
Have you linted your code prior to submission?
Have you updated the documentation and README?
Is PII treated correctly? In particular, make sure the code is not logging objects or strings that might contain PII (e.g. request headers).
Have secrets been stripped before committing?