Skip to content
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

Update getAuthSchemes javadoc #1930

Merged

Conversation

milesziemer
Copy link
Contributor

Updates javadoc for ServiceIndex::getAuthSchemes to say the returned order is alphabetical. Tests were updated in #1915to assert this ordering for ServiceIndex::getEffectiveAuthSchemes, but it also made the same update for the ServiceIndex::getAuthSchemes test. The PR didn't include a javadoc update, so the purpose of this PR is to fix that.

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

@milesziemer milesziemer requested a review from a team as a code owner August 16, 2023 19:18
Updates javadoc for ServiceIndex::getAuthSchemes to say the returned
order is alphabetical. Tests were updated in smithy-lang#1915 to assert this
ordering for ServiceIndex::getEffectiveAuthSchemes, but it also
made the same update for the ServiceIndex::getAuthSchemes test.
The PR didn't include a javadoc update, so the purpose of this PR
is to fix that.
@milesziemer milesziemer merged commit 6855a8f into smithy-lang:main Aug 18, 2023
10 checks passed
alextwoods pushed a commit to alextwoods/smithy that referenced this pull request Sep 15, 2023
Updates javadoc for ServiceIndex::getAuthSchemes to say the returned
order is alphabetical. Tests were updated in smithy-lang#1915 to assert this
ordering for ServiceIndex::getEffectiveAuthSchemes, but it also
made the same update for the ServiceIndex::getAuthSchemes test.
The PR didn't include a javadoc update, so the purpose of this PR
is to fix that.
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants