-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 102
New response type #391
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
Merged
Merged
New response type #391
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
1384e73
WIP: refactoring Response classes
delvedor 56d07e4
WIP: refactoring Response classes and removed old behaviors
delvedor fe5f42a
Updated compiler to adopt the new Response type
delvedor 20660c0
Updated ts generator to update the new Response type
delvedor 34ec326
Updated output
delvedor df12be8
Updated docs
delvedor 02dc6b0
Merge branch 'master' into new-response-type
delvedor 6d5134c
Updated output
delvedor 73011bd
Lint
delvedor File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
Late review of this PR... IMHO we should remove this newly introduced
VoidValue
.void
is not a value, it's the absence of value (which is different fromnull
andundefined
that are values). As such a property cannot be of type void, but adding it to theValueOf
enumeration makes it possible.We already have a simpler means to represent requests and responses with an empty body (or more exactly no body, as an empty body could be
{}
): thebody
property is optional:body?: ValueBody | PropertiesBody
. If it's not specified, then the request or response has no body.Or was this introduced so that body-less requests and responses are explicitly represented in the spec? In that case we should make the body property a required field and add a 3rd alternative:
body: ValueBody | PropertiesBody | VoidBody