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

content.attachment.data which is Required/Optional #852

Closed
Fitz1006 opened this issue Oct 11, 2019 · 4 comments
Closed

content.attachment.data which is Required/Optional #852

Fitz1006 opened this issue Oct 11, 2019 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
Structured Issue associated with Access Record Structured capability

Comments

@Fitz1006
Copy link
Collaborator

TPP - Annelie

@Fitz1006 Fitz1006 added the Structured Issue associated with Access Record Structured capability label Oct 11, 2019
@dilrajbhatia2
Copy link
Collaborator

Agree with you Annelie. Attachment.data field should not be populated when it is a response to search documents query.
Attachment.data field should be populated when it is a response to retrieve a binary of the given document. We will update the specs to reflect this data population requirement.

@dilrajbhatia2
Copy link
Collaborator

  1. We have removed the content.data.attachment field from the DocumentReference profile as it will not be populated in Search Documents API request
  2. @mstephens-xsl - Please could you update the Search Document API spec to provide guidance on point 1

@mstephens-xsl
Copy link
Contributor

There was no change required in the API, this just needs the profile guidance to be updated.

@dilrajbhatia2
Copy link
Collaborator

I have updated the profile guidance. I have informed John Geroge(technical modeller of the profile) to make it an optional field.

jonnyry pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 18, 2020
content.attachment.data field
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Structured Issue associated with Access Record Structured capability
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants