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

Missing docs for LoopBack type "file" #582

Closed
eisverticker opened this issue Jan 10, 2018 · 3 comments
Closed

Missing docs for LoopBack type "file" #582

eisverticker opened this issue Jan 10, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@eisverticker
Copy link

URL of the page

https://loopback.io/doc/en/lb3/LoopBack-types.html

Nature of the issue

Missing documentation content

Expected behavior

I expected to find the file type on this page see this issue

Actual behavior

file type was missing in the type listing

@bschrammIBM
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you for this comment. I am waiting for confirmation from the Eng team and will make the necessary update.

@bajtos bajtos changed the title Missing LoopBack type (file) Missing docs for LoopBack type "file" Jan 12, 2018
@bajtos bajtos added the doc label Jan 12, 2018
@bajtos
Copy link
Member

bajtos commented Jan 12, 2018

@eisverticker thank you for reporting the issue. The status of "file" support is complicated - see my comment strongloop/loopback-swagger#34 (comment), it's not enough to add "file" entry to the doc page you mentioned.

I personally consider "file" type as an immature feature not ready for prime time, intended for advanced users only, and therefore I think it's too early to document it.

However, if you feel like contributing the documentation, then I am happy to help you along the way, as long as the docs clearly states the status and caveats.

@dhmlau
Copy link
Member

dhmlau commented Apr 8, 2020

Closing due to inactivity.

@dhmlau dhmlau closed this as completed Apr 8, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants