fix: Correct UserMessage example to use builder #4848
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The documentation example for UserMessage incorrectly used a private constructor. This commit updates the example to use the public `builder()` method, making the code functional. Signed-off-by: MoGreene <[email protected]>
Mo-Greene
force-pushed
the
feat/docs-typo
branch
from
2e091f8 to
6db5730
Compare
Member
|
@Mo-Greene Thanks for catching and the PR fixing the documentation! |
Member
|
Rebased and merged as 68adc26 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The documentation example for UserMessage incorrectly used a private constructor. This commit updates the example to use the public
builder()method, making the code functional.I've submitted this fix because the example as written used a private constructor and appeared to be non-functional.
However, I did consider that this might have been an intentional choice—perhaps to show a simpler, POJO-like constructor pattern for teaching purposes, even if it wasn't runnable.
If that is the case and you'd prefer to keep the original example for pedagogical reasons, please let me know, and I'll be happy to close this pull request.