docs: updated sqs binding readme file

[gokerakc]

Description

• type: standard is not a valid property. Based on the SQS schema we need to use the property fifoQueue.

More details

In the SQS binding schema, we are using the fifoQueue property (also you can see in this table) to define the queue whether is a standard or a FIFO one.

But in the SQS readme example, type: standard was used and this does not match with the schema itself. So to fix that mismatching we need to use fifoQueue: false instead of type: standard in the readme example.

[github-actions]

Welcome to AsyncAPI. Thanks a lot for creating your first pull request. Please check out our contributors guide useful for opening a pull request.
Keep in mind there are also other channels you can use to interact with AsyncAPI community. For more details check out this issue.

[derberg]

@dpwdec @iancooper please have a look

[iancooper]

AWS supports two queue types for SQS: standard and FIFO. Please see: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSSimpleQueueService/latest/SQSDeveloperGuide/sqs-queue-types.html

Is there a problem underlying this request?

//cc @dpwdec

[gokerakc]

I've edited the PR description to explain the issue better.

[dpwdec]

@iancooper we changed the schema to reflect the AWS API for making a queue FIFO or Standard which is done via a boolean called FifoQueue. In the AsyncAPI schema here

I believe @gokerakc ‘s PR is just bringing the examples in line with the schema because these were missed on the initial commit for the SQS binding and still show the original design.

[iancooper]

Thanks for that @gokerakc and @dpwdec. Type only really has advantages if AWS issues another type, so that we cannot use a boolean flag. That is however speculative, and given that AWS would have to adjust their API to fix the issue, I think we can agree to opt for what would be most obvious for an AWS developer, in this case using the boolean flag instead of a type field.

Thanks for the explanation.

[derberg]

@iancooper @dpwdec I guess this one is ok to be merged?

[derberg]

@dpwdec fyi, next time you can also merge with /rtm comment under a PR. This way you are sure that merging is done 100% accurate with proper PR. Most important, less clicking 😄