-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.1k
v3.2: Ordered multipart
examples
#4746
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
base: v3.2-dev
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@handrews looks good other than the minor typo
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1, minor nits
@ralfhandl @miqui I have updated the above and will mark them resolved to reduce noise when we look at this in the call, but here is a summary:
|
required: true | ||
content: | ||
text/plain: | ||
schema: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@handrews a note to review the wording here, and consider if we need both this example and the one above
We discussed the media range in the multipart/related example - the type param is actually required so we agreed to keep it in the example this time. |
Wow, I must have been having A Day™ when I wrote this before...
With (more) apologies to @ralfhandl I rebased to clear conflicts with #4747, in this case it was just that both added new examples in the same place at the end of the section, so now this PR adds them after the old examples but before the nested multipart example. The commits are otherwise identical to before. |
These are the examples that go with PRs #4745 and #4744.
This includes the recently (this past week) updated
multipart/related
example that was provoking a lot of discussion. Otherwise, the examples are the same as in the old PR #4589.