Skip to content

Conversation

@toumorokoshi
Copy link
Member

A requirement stated that only alphanumerics were allowed, conflicting with a line later that also allowed kebab-cased dashes.

Clarifying that dashes are indeed allowed.

fixes #396

🍱 Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce to AEP? Put an x in the boxes
that apply

  • Enhancement
  • New proposal
  • Migrated from google.aip.dev
  • Chore / Quick Fix

📋 Your checklist for this pull request

Please review the AEP Style and Guidance for
contributing to this repository.

General

💝 Thank you!

A requirement stated that only alphanumerics were allowed,
conflicting with a line later that also allowed kebab-cased 
dashes.

Clarifying that dashes are indeed allowed.

fixes aep-dev#396
@toumorokoshi toumorokoshi requested a review from a team as a code owner December 12, 2025 05:36
Copy link
Contributor

@mkistler mkistler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good! 👍

Copy link
Contributor

@mkistler mkistler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Probably should fix this

@mkistler
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry ... one more thing. Should there be a parents property in x-aep-resource?

It looks like the example.oas.yaml includes parents in at least some of the x-aep-resource, e.g. here.

If it's valid, I think we need to describe it in AEP-004.

Co-authored-by: Mike Kistler <mkistler@sbcglobal.net>
@toumorokoshi
Copy link
Member Author

Sorry ... one more thing. Should there be a parents property in x-aep-resource?

It looks like the example.oas.yaml includes parents in at least some of the x-aep-resource, e.g. here.

If it's valid, I think we need to describe it in AEP-004.

I agree, although a part of me thinks that should be a separate, granular change? No strong opinion though so i suppose I should just add it.

@rambleraptor
Copy link
Member

Are we back porting this?

Copy link
Contributor

@mkistler mkistler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good! 👍

@toumorokoshi toumorokoshi merged commit e472cf4 into aep-dev:main Dec 12, 2025
2 checks passed
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.

Confusing / conflicting guiance in AEP-004

3 participants