-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Allow path field in update #86
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm ok if you want to follow up with a rule requiring path, but it'd be great to add that with this PR!
Adding some tests to ensure: - The generated output matches what is currently expected. - Output is consistent with the AEP linter (this is disabled until aep-dev/api-linter#86 is merged).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks! There's still a fix needed, so if you can fix that before merging that would be great.
rule: | ||
aep: 134 | ||
name: [core, '0134', request-path-required] | ||
summary: Delete RPCs must have a `path` field in the request. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
summary: Delete RPCs must have a `path` field in the request. | |
summary: Update RPCs must have a `path` field in the request. |
I think a few more places need "Delete" replaced with "Update".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A part of me wonders if we can make this rule or it's generation more generic somehow.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Potentially a way to do that? I can make a bug for it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd probably refactor the linter rule to look at specific method names (Read{singular}/Update{Singular}, etc), then require the field for those methods.
Maybe it'll be kind of hard to incorporate that into multiple different rule sets though.
6bba03a
to
af2f2ff
Compare
Allow path field in Update to fix errors on aepc