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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
feat: Add bulk invitation creation support #351
feat: Add bulk invitation creation support #351
Changes from 2 commits
b354456
50f9221
c9002ee
0d2d9a1
1b64d7f
e9158d5
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
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.
❓ Why do we need this custom marshaling method?
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.
We need the custom marshaling because the API's request for bulk is an array of regular requests, so it’s not bound to a key like
{"invitations": [...]}
. To be accurate in SDK, the correct type would betype BulkCreateParams []*CreateParams
. However this wouldn’t be compatible withreq.SetParams
.Do you have a better alternative to suggest?
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.
Thanks for explaining! It is indeed a problem with the current implementation.
Not really. 😞 As discussed offline, let's settle on the exported types for now and solidify the API.
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.
I’ve refactored the types as we discussed a bit here. Please take another look when you get a chance.
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.
🔧 Let's use clerk.JoinPath here.
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.
❓ Could you explain why this and the UnmarshalJSON method is needed?
Why do we want to return different results than the API?
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.
Similar to this thread, this can actually be improved if we introduce another type. However, because this cannot be paginated because it's a response, it’s not under a key, it’s just an array. So we would lose the
APIResource
in the process.