Skip to content

Update doc string for dryRun in FCM send methods. #509

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 3 commits into from
Feb 19, 2021

Conversation

chong-shao
Copy link
Contributor

@chong-shao chong-shao commented Jan 13, 2021

Update doc string for dryRun in FCM send methods to mention that it cannot be used to validate APNS tokens.

Copy link
Contributor

@egilmorez egilmorez left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks Chong! A couple nits for you.

* FCM performs all the necessary validations, and emulates the send operation.
* FCM performs all the necessary validations, and emulates the send operation. {@code dryRun}
* option is useful for validating if an FCM registration has been deleted. But it cannot be used
* to validate APNS tokens.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggest "APNs"

@@ -161,8 +163,10 @@ public BatchResponse sendAll(
* send the entire list as a single RPC call. Compared to the {@link #send(Message)} method, this
* is a significantly more efficient way to send multiple messages.
*
* <p>If the {@code dryRun} option is set to true, the messages will not be actually sent. Instead
* FCM performs all the necessary validations, and emulates the send operation.
* <p>If the {@code dryRun} option is set to true, the message will not be actually sent. Instead
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same comments as above.

@chong-shao
Copy link
Contributor Author

chong-shao commented Feb 10, 2021

Friendly ping :) (Sorry I think I forgot to client the re-request review button)

@chong-shao chong-shao requested a review from egilmorez February 10, 2021 23:22
Copy link
Contributor

@egilmorez egilmorez left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LG, some optional nits to consider. Thanks!

@chong-shao
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks Eric!

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