spec
spec copied to clipboard
asyncapi
feat!: move operations to its own root object
title: "Move operations to its own root object"
Related issue(s):
#618 #663
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! 
0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells
No Coverage information
0.0% Duplication
![sonarcloud[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/12526?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
/progress 60
New operations object is defined but there's still a pending discussion about how to reference the channel, i.e., via ID or $ref object. Read more on #663.
/progress 20
did it work :trollface:? or did you make sure that only your "progress comments" are taken into account? 😄
and regarding PR:
- please add new object to ToC of the spec
- it is a new root object, so should be added to
AsyncAPI Object - I'm definitely up with using
$reffor channel reference, let's be consistent everywhere though - I'm guessing the message goes away from operation as it stays in the channel, right? and it is handled here https://github.com/asyncapi/spec/pull/827/ so all good from my side
New operations object is defined but there's still a pending discussion about how to reference the channel, i.e., via ID or $ref object. Read more on https://github.com/asyncapi/spec/issues/663.
@fmvilas I think we just need @dalelane view on that, or are you waiting for someone else?
/progress 60
did it work :trollface:? or did you make sure that only your "progress comments" are taken into account? 😄
It did work because it's meant to be used as a team so I just have to rely on the hope that you would not troll me so much 😅 (damn, as I'm writing this I'm already realizing I'm dead 😂)
I think we just need @dalelane view on that, or are you waiting for someone else?
Dale's point of view for sure. Would also love to have the opinions of —at least— @smoya, @char0n, and @magicmatatjahu. And of course, anyone else reading this is also welcome. I know you know but just so everyone knows :)
Regarding the review, thanks! I'll address all those points 👍
Alright, I think I addressed all the points @derberg. Would you please review it again?
just to be clear, after we merge it, a release candidate will be released and published on the website
🤔 Should we avoid it for now? I just want to make progress towards 3.0.0 but we're still far. Should I use chore in this case?
tbh, I'm pro-pre-releases 😄 as they raise awareness. They will be published to asyncapi.com and will make it pretty clear to users going to "docs" that 3.0 is on the horizon. Docs is the most visited part of the website. We could add some big note at the beginning of the spec file, with some essential links on how to engage in works towards 3.0, just a thought.
We could add some big note at the beginning of the spec file, with some essential links on how to engage in works towards 3.0, just a thought.
That's a good idea. Will add it.
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!
0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells
No Coverage information
0.0% Duplication
@fmvilas
- please remember not to merge this PR until https://github.com/asyncapi/spec/pull/759#issuecomment-1253666349 is solved and the release workflow, otherwise we are not able to release RC
- update PR title to
feat!:as we are actually suppose to release a major release candidate
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!
0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells
No Coverage information
0.0% Duplication
:tada: This PR is included in version 3.0.0-next-major-spec.1 :tada:
The release is available on GitHub release
Your semantic-release bot :package::rocket:
