Skip to content

Conversation

@Pil0tXia
Copy link
Member

@Pil0tXia Pil0tXia commented Jul 6, 2023

Fixes #4185.

Motivation

image

According to the original Chinese comments in the git commit history, the existing English comments are misleading. The English translation does not match the meaning of the original Chinese text, which affects understanding.

Modifications

Correct eventmesh.properties comment grammar mistake.

    # Webhook CloudEvent sending mode. This property is the same as the eventMesh.storage.plugin.type configuration.
    producer:
      storage: standalone

Documentation

  • Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (no)
  • If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable / docs / JavaDocs / not documented)
  • If a feature is not applicable for documentation, explain why?
  • If a feature is not documented yet in this PR, please create a followup issue for adding the documentation


## Source
A source connector obtains data from an underlying data producer and delivers it to targets, after original data has been transformed into CloudEvents. It doesn't limit the way how a source retrieves data. (e.g., A source may pull data from a message queue or act as an HTTP server waiting for data sent to it).
A source connector obtains data from an underlying data producer, and delivers it to targets after original data has been transformed into CloudEvents. It doesn't limit the way how a source retrieves data. (e.g., A source may pull data from a message queue or act as an HTTP server waiting for data sent to it).
Copy link
Member Author

@Pil0tXia Pil0tXia Jul 6, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have also made modifications to the eventmesh-connectors/README.md file to correct the same type of mistake. The correct sequence of the data processing steps should be "obtains data from data producer" first, followed by "transforms it into CloudEvents," and finally "delivers it to targets". However, the original text conveys a misleading meaning, suggesting that the sequence is "transforms it into CloudEvents," then "obtains data from data producer" and "delivers it to targets."

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 6, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #4187 (ae08477) into master (3392b45) will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head ae08477 differs from pull request most recent head 619fb99. Consider uploading reports for the commit 619fb99 to get more accurate results

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #4187      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     16.93%   16.92%   -0.01%     
+ Complexity     1413     1412       -1     
============================================
  Files           589      589              
  Lines         25789    25789              
  Branches       2397     2397              
============================================
- Hits           4368     4366       -2     
- Misses        20985    20986       +1     
- Partials        436      437       +1     

see 1 file with indirect coverage changes

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

Copy link
Member

@mxsm mxsm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@xwm1992 xwm1992 merged commit 1497fd3 into apache:master Jul 10, 2023
@Pil0tXia Pil0tXia deleted the pil0txia_doc_4185 branch January 4, 2024 05:18
xuhongjia pushed a commit to Deckers-Ohana/eventmesh that referenced this pull request Mar 13, 2025
…ake (apache#4187)

* doc: Correct eventmesh.properties comment grammar mistake

* doc: Correct README.md grammar sequence mistake
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[Doc] Correct eventmesh.properties comment grammar mistake

5 participants