specs: clarify union and unknown data types
#349
Merged
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
arcalinea
temporarily deployed
to
bnewbold/clarify-union-unknown - atproto-website PR #349
Render
Destroyed
devinivy
approved these changes
Oct 3, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
tl;dr:
uniondefinition was already good, but word it more strongly, and explicitly saytokenstrings are not valid (I had been fuzzy on this)unknownneeds to be an object. It can't be things like a blob, link, or bytes, even though those are "objects" in JSON encoding.Also recommend against using
unknownin records, to give us some wiggle room about strict data validation. AKA, we haven't really defined or enforced some of the corner cases around "generic data validation".Closes: #317
Closes: #319