-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
fix: Message forwards do not require other fields #7830
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
Conversation
docs/resources/message.mdx
Outdated
|
|
||
| :::info | ||
| When creating a message, apps must provide a value for **at least one of** `content`, `embeds`, `sticker_ids`, `components`, `files[n]`, or `poll`. | ||
| When creating a message, apps must provide a value for **at least one of** `content`, `embeds`, `sticker_ids`, `components`, `files[n]`, `poll`, or `message_reference` (only when reference type is [`FORWARD`](/docs/resources/message#message-reference-types)). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
honestly that still sounds off. i was more a fan of marks suggestion
| When creating a message, apps must provide a value for **at least one of** `content`, `embeds`, `sticker_ids`, `components`, `files[n]`, `poll`, or `message_reference` (only when reference type is [`FORWARD`](/docs/resources/message#message-reference-types)). | |
| When creating a message, apps must provide a value for **at least one of** `content`, `embeds`, `sticker_ids`, `components`, `files[n]`, [forwarding](/docs/resources/message#message-reference-types) `message_reference` or `poll`. |
maybe we could meet in the middle here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also don't forget about
We should also update line 644, since it duplicates this one
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
isn't specifying the type clearer here? not sure tbh
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
it's the wording for me here. it doesn't add up with the rest of the sentence
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
updated, lmk
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i wouldn't remove the info box 😅
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
it doesn't make sense to keep both of them
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm then
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like that a lot. Nicely done.
No description provided.