[Docs Bug 🐞 report]: operation object example incorrect

[ababkin]

Describe the bug you found in AsyncAPI Docs.

it specifically says: "It MUST contain a subset of the messages defined in the channel referenced in this operation, and MUST NOT point to a subset of message definitions located in the Messages Object in the Components Object or anywhere else."

but then the example later reads:

messages:
  - $ref: '#/components/messages/userSignedUp'

this example breaks and is fixed if i follow the original suggestion to reference from the channel messages and not from component messages

Attach any resources that can help us understand the issue.

https://www.asyncapi.com/docs/reference/specification/v3.0.0#channelsObject

Code of Conduct

• [X] I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct

[github-actions[bot]]

Welcome to AsyncAPI. Thanks a lot for reporting your first issue. Please check out our contributors guide and the instructions about a basic recommended setup useful for opening a pull request.
Keep in mind there are also other channels you can use to interact with AsyncAPI community. For more details check out this issue.

[ARYPROGRAMMER]

Hi there! 👋

I believe there might be a misunderstanding in this issue. Let me explain:

1. Things to understand:

   • Messages in Operation Object MUST contain a subset of messages defined in the channel
   • Messages MUST NOT point to message definitions in the Components Object

2. What the Specification Actually Says: According to the Operation Object specification, the messages field is defined as:

   messages: [[Reference Object]] | A list of `$ref` pointers pointing to the supported Message Objects that can be processed by this operation.
   
   

I think /component route in definition is actually correct, you see:

Components obj has different set of messages defined and thus there's no discrepancy.

I may be missing something, if so do let me know more. Thanks.

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity :sleeping:

It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation.

There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model.

Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here.

Thank you for your patience :heart: