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

Elaborate on subsequent progressive invocation options #511

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 24, 2023

Conversation

ecorm
Copy link
Contributor

@ecorm ecorm commented Nov 22, 2023

Fixes #479

@ecorm
Copy link
Contributor Author

ecorm commented Nov 22, 2023

Here is a list of CALL options, for reference:

  • CALL.Options.disclose_me|bool
  • CALL.Options.ppt_cipher|string
  • CALL.Options.ppt_keyid|string
  • CALL.Options.ppt_scheme|string
  • CALL.Options.ppt_serializer|string
  • CALL.Options.receive_progress|bool
  • CALL.Options.rkey
  • CALL.Options.runmode|string
  • CALL.Options.timeout|integer

Copy link
Member

@oberstet oberstet left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm +1 on this. It is actually a good restriction, and one that is lenient .. if that's the right word. because of "ignore", not "bail out".

one minor note: so this "ignore" any option but progress applies both to spec defined options and custom options (x_*)? fine for me! could be made explicit in the text.

@ecorm
Copy link
Contributor Author

ecorm commented Nov 23, 2023

one minor note: so this "ignore" any option but progress applies both to spec defined options and custom options (x_*)? fine for me! could be made explicit in the text.

Added a sentence to make it explicit for custom options.

@oberstet
Copy link
Member

oberstet commented Nov 23, 2023

fantastic, thank for adjusts! so from my side, +1 RTFM .. maybe wait for at least one more vote from an non-author implementor? I'll add the flag.

sidenote/OT: I'm also going to provide feedback and try a summary of a "step 1" rgd the other issue rgd limit URIs .. not now though ..

@ecorm
Copy link
Contributor Author

ecorm commented Nov 24, 2023

sidenote/OT: I'm also going to provide feedback and try a summary of a "step 1" rgd the other issue rgd limit URIs .. not now though ..

I just wrote a big brain dump regarding the limit URIs issue. I suggest you read it first in case it overlaps with what you have in mind. Or it may trigger some different/better ideas on your part.

@oberstet
Copy link
Member

sidenote/OT: I'm also going to provide feedback and try a summary of a "step 1" rgd the other issue rgd limit URIs .. not now though ..

I just wrote a big brain dump regarding the limit URIs issue. I suggest you read it first in case it overlaps with what you have in mind. Or it may trigger some different/better ideas on your part.

thanks a lot! will do.

Copy link
Collaborator

@KSDaemon KSDaemon left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍🏻 LGTM!

@KSDaemon
Copy link
Collaborator

I'm +1 for merging this!
I'll try to update the Nexus while it is hot)

@oberstet oberstet merged commit 9e91451 into wamp-proto:master Nov 24, 2023
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Propagation of frozen options in progressive call invocations
3 participants