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

Simplifies the client specification and adds server specification for patch subset #4

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
May 18, 2021

Conversation

garretrieger
Copy link
Contributor

  • Remove the response_type field from responses. This is now inferred by the client based on which fields are set/unset.
  • Unify handling of patch and rebase in the client (treats rebase as a patch against a zero length file).
  • Adds specification for expected server behaviour. This is intentionally very minimal to give server implementations plenty of flexibility.

Copy link
Contributor

@vlevantovsky vlevantovsky left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall, the changes look good. I think that once we get to a more stable version of the spec, we should have a group discussion reviewing all "musts" to figure out which one can be testable and, therefore, capitalized. Certain "musts" (like e.g. protocol version must be set to 0, patch format must contain at least one format, etc.) can be easily tested by malformed inputs.

@garretrieger
Copy link
Contributor Author

Overall, the changes look good. I think that once we get to a more stable version of the spec, we should have a group discussion reviewing all "musts" to figure out which one can be testable and, therefore, capitalized. Certain "musts" (like e.g. protocol version must be set to 0, patch format must contain at least one format, etc.) can be easily tested by malformed inputs.

Sounds good to me.

@garretrieger garretrieger merged commit fdd095b into main May 18, 2021
@garretrieger garretrieger deleted the simplify branch June 15, 2021 17:50
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.

2 participants