FIX(AIP-157): clarify distinction between request and request message #1174
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…annels "should not be specified in the request" is ambiguous; side channels and headers are part of the request, as is the request message. This change clarifies the AIP to refer specifically to the request message, not the entire request. Other phrasing in this AIP used "field on the request", not "field in the request", so this change is consistent with that. This change includes further trivial tweaks to whitespace and grammar that should not change the intent.
toumorokoshi
approved these changes
Jul 17, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
"should not be specified in the request" is ambiguous; side channels and headers are part of the request, as is the request message. This change clarifies the AIP to refer specifically to the request message, not the entire request.
Other phrasing in this AIP used "field on the request", not "field in the request", so this change is consistent with that.
This change includes further trivial tweaks to whitespace and grammar that should not change the intent.
The most important change here IMHO is the 1 word change (addition of "message") in L26. I opted to include further "trivial cleanup" but I don't feel strongly about it and please let me know if it's a bad idea to combine multiple purposes in one change like this. The change at L28 (from "must be a FieldMask" to "must be interpreted as a FieldMask") is because I found it confusing to talk about the type of the field-mask parameter when it's carried in a side channel (for most of the side channels there's no option to provide type information as part of the API definition, and I found talking about the type of the parameter to unintentionally imply it belongs in the API definition somewhere, eg as a request message field which is explicitly discouraged).