Skip to content

feat: document expires_at for Avatar Decoration Data #7590

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

ijsbol
Copy link

@ijsbol ijsbol commented Jun 1, 2025

No description provided.

@ijsbol ijsbol requested a review from a team as a code owner June 1, 2025 08:22
@ijsbol ijsbol requested review from markmandel and removed request for a team June 1, 2025 08:22
@markmandel
Copy link
Contributor

markmandel commented Jun 10, 2025

Apologies for the delay, was OOO for the week. Thanks for the submission!

I'm just checking internally if this is something we want to document, or if it's something that may not be stable.

@markmandel
Copy link
Contributor

Apologies for the delay.

Since this isn't in our Open API Spec, it's not to be documented or relied on as stable.

So I'm going to close this PR for now. If there is a strong use case for this particular field to be made stable, please file an issue and we will route the feedback internally.

Nevertheless - appreciate your contributions!

@markmandel markmandel closed this Jun 12, 2025
@ijsbol
Copy link
Author

ijsbol commented Jun 13, 2025

Since this isn't in our Open API Spec, it's not to be documented or relied on as stable.

It was my understanding that the Open API Spec is currently unstable and non-complete. I fail to see how something being undocumented within an incomplete specification is grounds to further leave it undocumented within what is supposed to be the complete specification.

re: README.md on the OpenAPI Spec Repo:

⚠️ The public preview of the OpenAPI spec is subject to breaking changes without advance notice, and should not be used within production environments.

@markmandel
Copy link
Contributor

Totally understand the confusion -- broadly speaking, if it's not in the OpenAPI spec, it's a pretty strong indicator it's not something that we want to be publicly referencable (i.e. it might go away in the future, or change).

That being said - quadruple checking with the team who implemented the API to make extra sure, and like I said, if you strongly feel like the API field is useful, please do file an issue!

@markmandel
Copy link
Contributor

FYI - super-double-quadruple checked with the team, and yes, this should not be documented at this time 👍🏻

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants