On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 1:08 PM Emre Hasegeli <e...@hasegeli.com> wrote: > > > I found the existing error code appropriate because for syntax > > specification, either we need to mandate this at the grammar level or > > at the API level. Also, I think we should give a message similar to an > > existing message: "publication_names parameter missing". For example, > > we can say, "proto_version parameter missing". BTW, I also don't like > > the other changes parse_output_parameters() done in 0001, if we want > > to improve all the similar messages there are other places in the code > > as well, so we can separately make the case for the same. > > Okay, I am changing these back. I think we should keep the word > "option". It is used on other error messages. >
Fair enough. I think we should push your first patch only in HEAD as this is a minor improvement over the current behaviour. What do you think? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
