-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 289
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
docs: fix the type and docs of Operation.message field #603
docs: fix the type and docs of Operation.message field #603
Conversation
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! |
Co-authored-by: frantuma <[email protected]> Refs #543 Refs asyncapi/spec#603
Co-authored-by: Fran Méndez <[email protected]>
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! |
All requested changes here have been processed. |
Pinging here. Is there anything I can do to move this PR forward? |
@char0n it renders strange |
@derberg can you be more specific what's strange about it? This type signature reflects exactly what the field allows in AsyncAPI 2.2.0 spec. I agree it looks complex, but that's what spec currently allows. Here a comment from @fmvilas that confirms it: #588 (comment) |
oh crap, you are right, immediately when I look at it, my brain tells me that formatting is broken, but you are rights, it is actually correct 😅 @fmvilas you requested changes so you need to approve to get it merged |
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!
|
/rtm |
🎉 This PR is included in version 2.3.0-2022-01-release.2 🎉 The release is available on GitHub release Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Refs #588