[api] icmp/icmp6 → icmp_v4/icmp_v6#10544
Open
david-crespo wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
Conversation
david-crespo
commented
Jun 3, 2026
| @@ -30926,7 +30926,7 @@ | |||
| "type": { | |||
| "type": "string", | |||
| "enum": [ | |||
| "icmp6" | |||
| "icmp_v6" | |||
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All of this boilerplate just for this...
david-crespo
force-pushed
the
rename-icmp-protocols
branch
from
39b7dc0 to
0560960
Compare
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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
We're already calling them
ICMPv4andICMPv6in the console as of oxidecomputer/console#3212. @taspelund agreed with me that it would be ideal if the API matched that.This is a fully robot-authored attempt at the rename. Leaving draft because I will need to review it. I went with
IcmpV4andIcmpV6in Rust, which by default becomesicmp_v4andicmp_v6in the JSON. That seems like the least bad option, but it would be easy to change. It's a lot of line additions, but it's all versioning boilerplate and tests. It looks pretty good at a glance.Note that because this is just a rename of existing enum values, there is a straightforward 1-1 mapping, so old clients will Just Work as long as they're passing the
api-versionheader.