-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 662
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Strong type api method responses #509
Comments
@bilby91 I’m glad to see your migration continue! We’re having a discussion about a few different ways to get richer types in another issue. Specifically, I mentioned exactly what you’re asking for in point (4) in this comment. I’d really appreciate your participation in that discussion so we can potentially come up with the steps to get there and divide the work. |
Hello @aoberoi !! I've been looking into the issues and PRs and it seems that there has been some progress on response typings :) Are they complete by this moment ? |
There is a PR open currently adding typing for web api responses. #1078. We are hoping to land these changes in the next few months. |
Is the main reasoning here that the API runs at it's own version - thus the package version can not really guarantee the responses are absolutely correct? These types would still be really handy to have imo as it's better than nothing (even if they're just the latest API version)! |
Let me closet this issue as #1188 added response types. The pre-released version 6.2.0-rc.0 including the response types is already available: https://www.npmjs.com/package/@slack/web-api/v/6.2.0-rc.0 We are going to release v6.2.0 before long! |
Description
Hello, I'm continuing my migration for
botbuilder-slack
to the new 4.x release. Today I realized that the responses from method calls are not type dependent on the method invocation, response type for every api call isPromise<WebAPICallResult>
. Is there any plan to support strong typed responses ? I can work on this with my previous typings.What type of issue is this? (place an
x
in one of the[ ]
)Requirements (place an
x
in each of the[ ]
)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: