Repository navigation
docs(cloud): list the event's ts field - #1610
Conversation
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: c3e9f906ca
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| | Field | Type | Meaning | | ||
| |---|---|---| | ||
| | `eventId` | text | Unique per event | | ||
| | `ts` | int, optional | The box's wall time of the event, in ms. Present only while NTP has synced the box clock. It can be earlier than `wallMs` when the event waited for the uplink. The phone dates the alert by the earlier of this and the send time | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ts with the field-omission rule
When the box clock is unsynchronized, this row requires ts to be absent, but the normative envelope rules at lines 88–90 still state that only wallMs, sources, and fieldSources may ever be omitted. Implementers following that rule could encode ts as null or reject the event that Core emits with cbor:"ts,omitempty"; add ts to the earlier omission list or otherwise clarify the exception.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Master fails
TestFieldsMatchTheProtocolDocumentingo/protocol/cloudwire:#1607 added
tsto the event body and its allowlist. #1604 then brought indocs/protocol-cloud.mdwithout that row. CI on master did not catch it because #1604 changed only docs, so the Go jobs were skipped. #1609 fails on the same test.This adds the row, worded from the field's comment in
push.go.go test ./...ingo/protocolpasses.🤖 Generated with Claude Code