docs: add conformance fixture contribution guidance#1958
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request updates CONTRIBUTING.md to add a new section outlining recommended patterns and minimum metadata for conformance fixture contributions. The feedback suggests capitalizing the first letter of each bullet point in the new section to maintain consistency with other lists in the repository.
Important
The consumer version of Gemini Code Assist on GitHub is being sunset. Starting June 18, 2026, new organization installations will be blocked, and all code review activity will officially cease on July 17, 2026.
For more details on the timeline and next steps, please review the Help Documentation.
| - protocol area covered (for example: discovery, lifecycle, errors, streaming) | ||
| - expected request/response shape or event sequence | ||
| - pass/fail criteria that can be checked across SDKs | ||
| - edge case rationale (why this fixture matters for interoperability) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For consistency with other lists in the repository (such as those in README.md), the bullet points should start with a capital letter.
| - protocol area covered (for example: discovery, lifecycle, errors, streaming) | |
| - expected request/response shape or event sequence | |
| - pass/fail criteria that can be checked across SDKs | |
| - edge case rationale (why this fixture matters for interoperability) | |
| - Protocol area covered (for example: discovery, lifecycle, errors, streaming) | |
| - Expected request/response shape or event sequence | |
| - Pass/fail criteria that can be checked across SDKs | |
| - Edge case rationale (why this fixture matters for interoperability) |
|
Thanks for the pipeline checks. I just updated this PR metadata to satisfy repo gates:
I still see |
eef08f7 to
0feecca
Compare
0feecca to
509e9f2
Compare
|
Applied the review wording fix in What changed:
Local validation:
|
Summary
Context
Closes #1957.
Notes
Docs-only change.