Repository navigation
docs: explain validation of received HTTP events - #671
Open
lazypanic999 wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
lazypanic999 wants to merge 1 commit into
lazypanic999 wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Doğukan Sağlık <dogukansaglik8563@gmail.com>
lazypanic999
marked this pull request as ready for review
November 8, 2026 10:46
This branch has not been deployed
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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 receiving-events example does not explain that HTTP conversion and event validation are separate. As reported in #597, a message without a type can be converted to a CloudEvent and then processed by an application that assumes conversion guarantees validity.
Document the explicit validate() step, show HTTP 400 handling for invalid input, and cover both individual events and HTTP batches. Explain that validation applies to the resulting objects after constructor defaults. This is a documentation improvement related to #597; it does not resolve the request to change deserialization behavior.
Validation:
Prepared with AI assistance; behavior was checked against the source, existing tests, and the executable example.