Skip to content

Commit 941d359

Browse files
authored
docs: update allowed mentions object section
Updated the section with the new components v2 behaviour.
1 parent 976b4a7 commit 941d359

File tree

1 file changed

+3
-3
lines changed

1 file changed

+3
-3
lines changed

docs/resources/message.mdx

Lines changed: 3 additions & 3 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -625,7 +625,7 @@ For the `attachments` array in Message Create/Edit requests, only the `id` is re
625625

626626
### Allowed Mentions Object
627627

628-
The allowed mention field allows for more granular control over mentions without various hacks to the message content. This will always validate against message content to avoid phantom pings (e.g. to ping everyone, you must still have `@everyone` in the message content), and check against user/bot permissions.
628+
The allowed mention field allows for more granular control over mentions without various hacks to the message content. This will always validate against message content or [message component](docs/components/using-message-components) content to avoid phantom pings (e.g. to ping everyone, you must still have `@everyone` in the message content or message component content), and check against user/bot permissions.
629629

630630
###### Allowed Mention Types
631631

@@ -648,7 +648,7 @@ The allowed mention field allows for more granular control over mentions without
648648

649649
Due to the complexity of possibilities, we have included a set of examples and behavior for the allowed mentions field.
650650

651-
If `allowed_mentions` is _not_ passed in (i.e. the key does not exist), the mentions will be parsed via the content. This corresponds with existing behavior.
651+
If `allowed_mentions` is _not_ passed in (i.e. the key does not exist), the mentions will be parsed via the message content or message component content. This corresponds with existing behavior.
652652

653653
In the example below we would ping @here (and also @role124 and @user123)
654654

@@ -711,7 +711,7 @@ Due to possible ambiguities, not all configurations are valid. An _invalid_ conf
711711
Because `parse: ["users"]` and `users: [123, 124]` are both present, we would throw a validation error.
712712
This is because the conditions cannot be fulfilled simultaneously (they are mutually exclusive).
713713

714-
Any entities with an ID included in the list of IDs can be mentioned. Note that the IDs of entities not present in the message's content will simply be ignored.
714+
Any entities with an ID included in the list of IDs can be mentioned. Note that the IDs of entities not present in the message content or message component content will simply be ignored.
715715
e.g. The following example is valid, and would mention user 123, but _not_ user 125 since there is no mention of
716716
user 125 in the content.
717717

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)