Skip to content

[TD] Consequence of contentType being optional #567

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
danielpeintner opened this issue Feb 20, 2025 · 2 comments
Open

[TD] Consequence of contentType being optional #567

danielpeintner opened this issue Feb 20, 2025 · 2 comments
Labels
for next iteration Planned or postponed topics for the future wait-for-td

Comments

@danielpeintner
Copy link
Contributor

danielpeintner commented Feb 20, 2025

The TD taskforce is discussing making contentType optional.

It is not only about ExpectedResponse and AdditionalExpectedResponse.
There are discussions that contentType MAY become optional in general and there is no default value kicking in like we do now with application/json.

I think we should try to understand the consequences (if any) from the Scripting API point of view.

@zolkis
Copy link
Contributor

zolkis commented Feb 21, 2025

In real life not much consequence, since the underlying platform for Scripting includes bindings.
Anyway we should make sure to specify the applicable fallbacks.

When contentType is not available, the content could (should) be presented as null, or a byte stream, or byte array (based on the quoted discussion the latter would be enough).

@relu91 relu91 added wait-for-td for next iteration Planned or postponed topics for the future labels Mar 5, 2025
@relu91
Copy link
Member

relu91 commented Mar 5, 2025

Scripting api call 05/03/2025:

  • to clarify it is still an ongoing discussion in TD so we have to wait until something concrete is decided.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
for next iteration Planned or postponed topics for the future wait-for-td
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants