-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
refactor: strip speculative RPCs — session lifecycle + hooks only #4
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🟡 Removed field number 4 from
ProcessHookEventResponsenot marked asreserved, risking future wire-format conflictsThe
credentialfield (number 4) was removed fromProcessHookEventResponsewithout adding areserved 4;declaration. Per the protobuf documentation, if a future contributor reuses field number 4 for a different type or semantic, older clients/servers that still have the old schema will silently misinterpret the wire data, causing data corruption. This is especially important in this repo since it's a shared contract between the CLI and API (README.md:2-3), andbuf breakingis configured to enforce backward compatibility (buf.yaml).(Refers to lines 44-48)
Was this helpful? React with 👍 or 👎 to provide feedback.