You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm looking at the code for the Ruleset & RepositoryRuleset types and both of them seem to be representing the same GH resource with slightly different implementations (Conditions & Rules). I can see that the Ruleset type use for the REST API is technically valid even though it represents the rules as an opaque json.RawMessage (this is what I'm looking to fix). But the RepositoryRuleset and specifically the RepositoryRulesetRule type doesn't match the schema for the repository_ruleset event, which is based on the same schema as for the REST API.
@gmlewis do you have additional context that I don't have to explain why this actually works? If not I plan on refactoring all of this code back to a common pattern as it used elsewhere as well as removing the json.RawMessage fields which cause issues in consumers such as the GH TF provider.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No, I personally have not used the repository ruleset endpoints.
I recommend you take a look at the GitHub "Blame" history of these endpoints to see who has been involved in their implementations, and possibly ask them in this issue if they have any additional context for you.
I'm looking at the code for the
Ruleset
&RepositoryRuleset
types and both of them seem to be representing the same GH resource with slightly different implementations (Conditions
&Rules
). I can see that theRuleset
type use for the REST API is technically valid even though it represents the rules as an opaquejson.RawMessage
(this is what I'm looking to fix). But theRepositoryRuleset
and specifically theRepositoryRulesetRule
type doesn't match the schema for the repository_ruleset event, which is based on the same schema as for the REST API.@gmlewis do you have additional context that I don't have to explain why this actually works? If not I plan on refactoring all of this code back to a common pattern as it used elsewhere as well as removing the
json.RawMessage
fields which cause issues in consumers such as the GH TF provider.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: