Handle nullable fields
#293
Merged
Conversation
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
david-crespo
force-pushed
the
nullable-types
branch
from
4117085 to
98ae99a
Compare
Collaborator
Author
|
Validated in oxidecomputer/console#2821 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Closes #283
Whoops, nullability was removed in #185. I think the argument there was correct that nullability doesn't make sense in query and path params, but we do need to handle it in API responses. The point about it being OK for us to be more restrictive than the API makes sense for what we send (it would apply to request bodies as well, for example) but not for what we receive, which we have no control over. See oxidecomputer/console#2820. We are not doing anything special for query and path params here, but we are using
schemaToTypeson them too, so they get| nulljust like fields in the component schemas.