Skip to content

Conversation

@Leptopoda
Copy link
Member

Probably an oversight of 07954bf

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Mar 18, 2023

Test Results

     27 files  1 233 suites   7m 19s ⏱️
   498 tests    498 ✔️ 0 💤 0
4 482 runs  4 481 ✔️ 1 💤 0

Results for commit 57a1815.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@Leptopoda
Copy link
Member Author

The changelog already covers the api cleanups :)

@christianlupus
Copy link
Collaborator

@Leptopoda, let me ask you one thing: Why would we want to remove the @type parameter from the API responses? I just checked that the API in fact returns the @type parameter. That way, we are compatible with the schema.org standard.

I am sorry, I did not get that merged earlier, and now I might ask dump questions that were mostly settled and I just forgot about it.

@Leptopoda
Copy link
Member Author

You removed it and I don't know why.

I only made the example reflect the specified responses (i.e. some documentation cleanup)

@Leptopoda
Copy link
Member Author

Also I should be fairly responsive so If you need a rebase I can always do so.

It might be better than you doing it so the commit is still properly signed.

@christianlupus
Copy link
Collaborator

In that case, I will revert 07954bf and close this PR. It seems counter-intuitive to have implicit parts of the JSON objects. Sorry for the noise and doubled work. I am not sure why this was done that way but it seems simply wrong.

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