Remove statement regarding missing TDD API specification #245
Conversation
This file contains 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
Yes. Thank you for updating the use case. |
|
@chachamimm we are not working on the document anymore but I think we can simply merge this PR as it updates some editorial stuff and removes an outdated statement about missing Discovery API. |
|
Will merge for now, but really this points out that in general, Use Cases will bring up gaps that may eventually get addressed. Rather than deleting the mention of the gap we should "tag" such feature requests/gaps as having been resolved. See issue #310 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
While working on #242, I noticed that there is a leftover sentence in the document that states that there is no standard API specification for WoT TDDs "to maintain and query TDs". As there is an API specification included in the Discovery document by now, I think this sentence could be removed now which this PR proposes to do.
@farshidtz: Do you also think this gap has been closed? Or are there still gaps to fill in the API specification?
Preview | Diff