Clarify the absence of fields with nested messages #67

New issue

Open

opened 2025-12-28 18:12:22 +00:00 by sami · 1 comment

sami commented

2025-12-28 18:12:22 +00:00

Owner

Originally created by @cthulhu-rider on GitHub (Apr 12, 2022).

There are plenty of fields of message type. I propose to explicitly write in docs whether the field MUST be set.

Where it is not written otherwise, I suggest to require field presence. Later we can relax the requirement, which would be a backwards compatible change.

These requirements will reduce the number of uncertainties when writing software.

Note: this only applies to fields in requests/responses.

Originally created by @cthulhu-rider on GitHub (Apr 12, 2022). There are plenty of fields of `message` type. I propose to explicitly write in docs whether the field MUST be set. Where it is not written otherwise, I suggest to require field presence. Later we can relax the requirement, which would be a backwards compatible change. These requirements will reduce the number of uncertainties when writing software. Note: this only applies to fields in requests/responses.

sami added the

enhancement

documentation

labels

2025-12-28 18:12:22 +00:00

sami commented

2025-12-28 18:12:23 +00:00

Author

Owner

@cthulhu-rider commented on GitHub (May 26, 2022):

We decided to consider all nested fields mandatory by default (where would you explicitly write about this?), and if an empty field is allowed, explicitly state this in the containing message.

@cthulhu-rider commented on GitHub (May 26, 2022): We decided to consider all nested fields mandatory by default (where would you explicitly write about this?), and if an empty field is allowed, explicitly state this in the containing message.