Change the messageText and messageId order for updateMessage

[sima-zhu]

Proposed order: messageId, popReceipt, messageText, visibilityTimeout
See what the other languages are doing, if it is consistent talk with them and discussing this change

[tg-msft]

In .NET we have

public virtual async Task<Response<UpdatedMessage>> UpdateMessageAsync(
    string messageText,
    string messageId,
    string popReceipt,
    TimeSpan visibilityTimeout = default,
    CancellationToken cancellationToken = default)

which puts messageText first to match EnqueueMessage.

I have no problem making this change if other languages would like to.

[rakshith91]

In Python, we have
def update_message(self, message, visibility_timeout=None, pop_receipt=None, content=None, timeout=None, **kwargs):
It can also be used to update the contents of the message.

[HarshaNalluru]

JS version - similar to python

// * @memberof MessageIdClient

  public async update(
    popReceipt: string,
    message: string,
    visibilityTimeout?: number,
    options: MessageIdUpdateOptions = {}
  ): Promise<Models.MessageIdUpdateResponse> 

[kurtzeborn]

XStore team agrees that we should have the same order of parameters on these. The slight preference is towards this ordering: messageText, popReceipt, visibilityTimeout, options. This seems to order them by most used to least used.

[JonathanGiles]

When I raised this with Sima, it was related to my preference that method arguments flow from arguments that identify the object to perform the operation on, and then to follow that with the values to provide to the object. In this way, it reads out as "update messageID / popReceipt to have a messageText as specified". Currently it reads "update to messageText on messageID / popReceipt", which feels back to front. I have a very weak opinion on this though.

[alzimmermsft]

Closing this as Java is consistent with .NET