Yes its good have. If it's a race against time and we are dropping the edit
due to that, i guess it's ok for now. However it will not be very user
friendly. So better make note of it for next time then :)
Thanks
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:09 PM Bhathiya Jayasekara
wrote:
> It's good to have.
It's good to have. But with the time limits we have, delete is also enough
I think. I mean they can delete and write again if need.
Thanks,
Bhathiya
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:55 AM Dushan Silva wrote:
> Hi Bhathiya,
> Shouldn't we support edit at least for the person who put the comment?
>
Hi Bhathiya,
Shouldn't we support edit at least for the person who put the comment?
Since it's more of a social feature edit would be useful for a user.
Thanks
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:47 AM Bhathiya Jayasekara
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:13 AM Kavishka Fernando
> wrote:
>
>> Hi
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:13 AM Kavishka Fernando
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thank you for the feedback. I will make the necessary changes.
>
> Should we allow users to comment on APIs which belong to different
>> tenants? If not we can remove '#/parameters/requestedTenant' from POST
>> operation.
Hi all,
If we supporting cross tenant subscriptions we have to give access to
comment creation.
+ 1 for this. we will need to check if cross tenant subscriptions are
available and allow the commenting. Also another possibility is similar to
cross tenant subscriptions we can *add an option to
Hi Ishara,
If we supporting cross tenant subscriptions we have to give access to
comment creation.
Thanks
On Thursday, August 15, 2019, Ishara Cooray wrote:
> Should we allow users to comment on APIs which belong to different
> tenants? If not we can remove '#/parameters/requestedTenant'
Should we allow users to comment on APIs which belong to different tenants?
If not we can remove '#/parameters/requestedTenant' from POST operation.
IMO this is not required as if we need to comment on an api we need to
login to the particular tenant.
Hence +1 to remove
Hi,
username:
>> type: string
>> description: |
>> If username is not given user invoking the API will be taken as
>> the username.
>>
>> Regarding the description: I guess we should omit it when posting a
comment and always use the logged-in user?
+1
>
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 6:06 PM Thilini Shanika wrote:
> Shouldn't we add error handling for unauthorized/forbidden API(Role
> restricted) comment retrievals/deletions
>
+1
Also please find a couple of inline comments:
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 5:10 PM Kavishka Fernando
> wrote:
>
>> Hi
Shouldn't we add error handling for unauthorized/forbidden API(Role
restricted) comment retrievals/deletions
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 5:10 PM Kavishka Fernando wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We are planning on creating the comments feature for the Store in APIM 3.0
> similar to the comments feature and
10 matches
Mail list logo
