Skip to content
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

fix: remove trailing comma from kafka and googlepubsub bindings for messages #429

Merged

Conversation

AceTheCreator
Copy link
Member

@AceTheCreator AceTheCreator commented Oct 5, 2023

Remove trailing commas from some bindings.

Bundling was broken because of it. CI before did not indicate any issues because of Node version. Now package lock is at version 2 and we will use Node 16 instead of 14 - no more issue with CI, in future we will see errors

@sonarcloud
Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented Oct 5, 2023

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

No Coverage information No Coverage information
0.0% 0.0% Duplication

@derberg derberg changed the title fix: fix trailing comma fix: remove trailing comma from kafka and googlepubsub bindings for messages Oct 5, 2023
Copy link
Member

@derberg derberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

well spotted 🚀

please make sure to bump next major for parser with latest spec package

@AceTheCreator
Copy link
Member Author

/rtm

@derberg
Copy link
Member

derberg commented Oct 5, 2023

@dalelane hey, we need your approval cause of kafka

@jonaslagoni I see you modified codeowners -> https://github.com/asyncapi/spec-json-schemas/blob/next-major-spec/CODEOWNERS to match bindings repo, but did you discuss it with particular code owners that you added to the list? I don't think there were added to the repo. Also don't think they need to be here.

@derberg
Copy link
Member

derberg commented Oct 5, 2023

imho we should have the same codeowners setup as in master, and if we wanna replicate setup from bindings, this needs a discussion and opt in from codeowners, as even in bindings repo, json schemas were owned by Khuda, not others

@jonaslagoni
Copy link
Member

jonaslagoni commented Oct 5, 2023

@dalelane hey, we need your approval cause of kafka

@jonaslagoni I see you modified codeowners -> https://github.com/asyncapi/spec-json-schemas/blob/next-major-spec/CODEOWNERS to match bindings repo, but did you discuss it with particular code owners that you added to the list? I don't think there were added to the repo. Also don't think they need to be here.

I mean we discussed it here: #239 (comment)

Think I forgot to ping codeowners afterward yeah.

But technically, I see it the other way around, this setup just mimics what we had in bindings, so technically no new changes need approval, except they have two repos now instead of one.

Not adding them as codeowners, would indeed need their approval IMO.

Also don't think they need to be here.

I completely disagree, otherwise, they are not really codeowners of bindings as they can only partial accept changes 🤷

Copy link
Member

@smoya smoya left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM! 🚀🌔

@derberg
Copy link
Member

derberg commented Oct 7, 2023

/rtm

@asyncapi-bot asyncapi-bot merged commit e6e0841 into asyncapi:next-major-spec Oct 7, 2023
22 checks passed
@derberg
Copy link
Member

derberg commented Oct 7, 2023

@jonaslagoni ah, you're completely right, sorry, forgot about that discussion.

please ping affected maintainers in asyncapi/bindings#113 and I will invite them to this repo

@asyncapi-bot
Copy link
Contributor

🎉 This PR is included in version 6.0.0-next-major-spec.9 🎉

The release is available on:

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants