Skip to content
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

feat: implement conversations.inviteShared #1195

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

Aenimus
Copy link

@Aenimus Aenimus commented Apr 13, 2023

Pull Request Guidelines

These are recommendations for pull requests.
They are strictly guidelines to help manage expectations.

PR preparation

Run make pr-prep from the root of the repository to run formatting, linting and tests.

Should this be an issue instead
  • is it a convenience method? (no new functionality, streamlines some use case)
  • exposes a previously private type, const, method, etc.
  • is it application specific (caching, retry logic, rate limiting, etc)
  • is it performance related.
API changes

Since API changes have to be maintained they undergo a more detailed review and are more likely to require changes.

  • no tests, if you're adding to the API include at least a single test of the happy case.
  • If you can accomplish your goal without changing the API, then do so.
  • dependency changes. updates are okay. adding/removing need justification.
Examples of API changes that do not meet guidelines:
  • in library cache for users. caches are use case specific.
  • Convenience methods for Sending Messages, update, post, ephemeral, etc. consider opening an issue instead.

AChelikani added a commit to pylon-labs/slack that referenced this pull request Aug 7, 2023
bamo pushed a commit to pylon-labs/slack that referenced this pull request Jun 14, 2024
@lorenzoaiello lorenzoaiello self-assigned this Jul 14, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@lorenzoaiello lorenzoaiello left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for your contribution @Aenimus !

This addition is aligned to the public documentation for conversations.inviteShared.

@lorenzoaiello
Copy link
Contributor

@Aenimus , it looks like I may not have permission to push to your forked branch to re-queue the GitHub Action CI checks.

Would you mind committing a no-op in the forked-branch so the checks will run?

$ git commit --allow-empty -m "Trigger GitHub Actions"
$ git push

Thanks!

@Aenimus
Copy link
Author

Aenimus commented Jul 16, 2024

Hi @lorenzoaiello,

I did as you have asked, but nothing seems to have changed (I'm assuming the message does not have to match identically).

@lorenzoaiello
Copy link
Contributor

lorenzoaiello commented Jul 16, 2024

Hi @lorenzoaiello,

I did as you have asked, but nothing seems to have changed (I'm assuming the message does not have to match identically).

Thanks! Since its a fork actions have to be approved by a maintainer but they did queue up correctly and I just approved the request 🚀

Can you take a look at the failing tests please? It looks like there may be a conflict when running the whole test suite.

@Aenimus
Copy link
Author

Aenimus commented Jul 16, 2024

Hi @lorenzoaiello,

I'd be happy to address the tests if I understood the error. I can run things locally just fine. I also don't see any other references to /conversations.inviteShared.

@Aenimus
Copy link
Author

Aenimus commented Jul 16, 2024

I just ran again from root: go test -v -race ./...

No failures or errors. Please advise.

@lorenzoaiello
Copy link
Contributor

lorenzoaiello commented Jul 16, 2024

@Aenimus , I'll try to do some digging to see if I can figure out what might be going on.

@Aenimus
Copy link
Author

Aenimus commented Jul 30, 2024

Hi @lorenzoaiello,

I still cannot replicate the CI errors, and I don't understand what could cause them.

Do you have any further insights?

@lorenzoaiello
Copy link
Contributor

lorenzoaiello commented Aug 15, 2024

@Aenimus - can you please try to rebase your branch and see if that makes it reproducible?

It seems like there was a commit after your original fork that added a conflicting test/endpoint registration. (I'm not sure if the CI is doing something non-obvious during checkout that is merging code)

@Aenimus
Copy link
Author

Aenimus commented Aug 15, 2024

@lorenzoaiello So the problem is that someone implemented this 3 months after I did, and that version was merged.

I suppose you can close this.

@lorenzoaiello
Copy link
Contributor

lorenzoaiello commented Aug 15, 2024

@lorenzoaiello So the problem is that someone implemented this 3 months after I did, and that version was merged.

I suppose you can close this.

It would appear so - apologies I missed that as well until now :( - Thank you for your effort though, its much appreciated!

gautamr95 pushed a commit to pylon-labs/slack that referenced this pull request Dec 13, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants