Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Fix inline docs for InstallationEvent type - #1808
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #1808 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 97.59% 97.59% =======================================
Files 100 100 Lines 6521 6521 =======================================
Hits 6364 6364 Misses 85 85 Partials 72 72
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
gmlewis
approved these changes
Feb 21, 2021
gmlewis
left a comment
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you, @andygrunwald !
LGTM.
Merging.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What type of PR is this?
documentation
What this PR does / why we need it:
The inline documentation for the
InstallationEventwent out of date.This PR fixes the link + possible values.
Furthermore, does the REST API send a
requesterkey as well.In my current use-case, this was
null, hence I am not aware of the type (is not documented).As a trade-off for now, I added a TODO. Once the type is known, this can be extended
Special notes for your reviewer:
This applies the same fix as in #1780
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:
None
Additional documentation e.g., usage docs, etc.: