You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: graph/GuidelinesGraph.md
+3-1Lines changed: 3 additions & 1 deletion
Display the source diff
Display the rich diff
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -338,7 +338,9 @@ Standards that *do* conflict with the OData standard may be defined in the CSDL
338
338
1. Using `Edm.Untyped` only and support for the external standard will come directly from the service implementation; OR
339
339
2. Adding CSDL elements to model the external standard using `Edm.String` for `EnumType`s that conflict with the OData standard and `Edm.Untyped` wherever any other conflict with the OData standard occurs
340
340
341
-
The benefit of the second approach is that strongly-typed models have SDK support for clients and also have significant tooling support for both the workload and clients. Note that it is backwards compatible for a workload to migrate from the second approach to the first approach in case the external standard is *initially* compliant with the OData standard and *later* conflicts with the OData standard.
341
+
In either case, any use of `Edm.String` instead of an `EnumType` or any use of `Edm.Untyped` must be documented with references to the standard that the client is expected to follow.
342
+
The benefit of the second approach is that strongly-typed models have SDK support for clients and also have significant tooling support for both the workload and clients.
343
+
Note that it is backwards compatible for a workload to migrate from the second approach to the first approach in case the external standard is *initially* compliant with the OData standard and *later* conflicts with the OData standard.
342
344
343
345
## API contract and non-backward compatible changes
0 commit comments