Skip to content

Conversation

@ktsypkina
Copy link
Member

change "may" to stronger "should" for additional (unknown) properties described in #111 to be compliant with requirements from server described in #109

@tfrauenstein
Copy link
Member

👍

Co-authored-by: Paŭlo Ebermann <paul.ebermann@zalando.de>
Copy link
Member

@tkrop tkrop left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@ktsypkina I think we should also improve on rule 109. At the moment it is missing a similar sentence as in 111 about that APIs must document, if they deviates from the default rejection strategy. Can you add a sentence about this after the strict recommendation too?

@tkrop
Copy link
Member

tkrop commented Feb 6, 2024

👍

@ePaul
Copy link
Member

ePaul commented Feb 21, 2024

👍

1 similar comment
@ktsypkina
Copy link
Member Author

👍

@ktsypkina ktsypkina merged commit 35743b9 into main Feb 21, 2024
@ktsypkina ktsypkina deleted the fix_discrepancy_between_two_rules branch February 21, 2024 12:26
@tkrop
Copy link
Member

tkrop commented Feb 21, 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.

5 participants