fix: add messageId property to message definition

[WaleedAshraf]

issue asyncapi/spec#458

[sonarqubecloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities (and 0 Security Hotspots to review)
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
No Duplication information

[fmvilas]

I don't think it should be added here yet. The messageId field is not part of the 2.0.0 spec. It will probably be landing on 2.1.0 or 3.0.0. We should close this PR.

[WaleedAshraf]

As @derberg said earlier, there is no clear versioning / semver for Schema itself. We have been fixing stuff in 2.0.0, without version bump.

[fmvilas]

We have been merging fixes to the schema, which is understandable. This introduces a new feature and that's totally different.

[WaleedAshraf]

Ok. Is there some roadmap/plan for 2.1.0? Are there any other new features on hold?

[fmvilas]

There are no plans yet. In the upcoming weeks, we'll be announcing a few things that should allow us to move faster :)

Regarding things on hold: asyncapi/spec@2.0.0...master. There's at least the Mercure binding waiting.

[derberg]

And also we have this issue from @lbroudoux to improve message examples.
We had those grouped under https://github.com/asyncapi/asyncapi/issues/353 (you need to have zenhub installed to see related linked issues to this epic) but that will need review as it is few months old

[WaleedAshraf]

Ok. I'll be waiting for announcements ;)
You guys would be working on a lot of things but having a roadmap would help both sides. (users and core contributors)
I'll try to hop-on on the next weekly meeting to have some more details about this.

Tagging to agenda: asyncapi/spec#462

[fmvilas]

We do have a roadmap (and you're part of the organization on Zehub) but it's impossible for us to follow. That's why I decided not to create a new one yet. It would be utter bullshit from our side to plan things for a whole year when things are moving so fast. We'll follow a different approach soon, just give us time to reorganize :)

[WaleedAshraf]

@fmvilas I see it. Yup, that is what I was looking for. 👍
I understand (and see) there's a bunch of stuff ongoing. Hopefully from next year, things will be in better shape.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity 😴
It will be closed in 60 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this pull request, add a comment with detailed explanation.
Thank you for your contributions ❤️

[sonarqubecloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
No Duplication information

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity 😴
It will be closed in 60 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this pull request, add a comment with detailed explanation.
Thank you for your contributions ❤️

[derberg]

@WaleedAshraf I suggest we close it and when you are ready to work on it you will open it up properly from a fork and point to a release branch. Agreed?