Lance Ball

> > Does by the next release (v1.9 on Jan 24, 2023) sound like a good deadline? > > Yes absolutely - we are currently about 0.3% away from "Usable"....

@manuelottlik we explicitly require incoming events to be manually validated, where extensions with non-conformant names should result in an error. See this test: https://github.com/cloudevents/sdk-javascript/blob/ea94a4d779d0744ef40abc81d08ab8b7e93e9133/test/integration/message_test.ts#L43-L57 The reason for this is that...

> Hi @lance, thank you for pointing that out – this makes sense to me regarding `HTTP.toEvent()`, but the behaviour `ce.validate()` is really confusing in my opinion. It returns true...

@manuelottlik just checkin in on this. Have you had a chance to validate?

Hi @nbhat000 - I wrote a simple test to try and reproduce the error you are seeing. ```js test('When half-open, a successful fire() closes the circuit', t => { t.plan(4);...

@kevkcc thanks for reporting this. No, this pattern is not currently supported. If you feel up for it, contributions are welcome!

@lholmquist can this bot be configured to use someone else's account now that I'm not officially working on this project?

Hi @vomc - thanks for the report. Any chance you can provide a reproducible example in code? I suspect it is related somehow to how JavaScript deals with `this`.

> So it will try that amount of calls first and evaluate the error percentage before closing the circuit again. Interesting. Currently, one would say that `opossum` only closes the...

> Let's get input from the steering committee on this as @dprotaso mentioned on the TOC call. I think it would be good to have a consensus about the marketing...