| Server IP : 167.235.224.122 / Your IP : 216.73.216.110 Web Server : Apache/2.4.58 (Ubuntu) System : Linux newplayground 6.8.0-136-generic #136-Ubuntu SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Wed Jul 1 21:33:11 UTC 2026 aarch64 User : deploy ( 1000) PHP Version : 8.4.23 Disable Function : NONE MySQL : OFF | cURL : ON | WGET : ON | Perl : ON | Python : OFF | Sudo : ON | Pkexec : OFF Directory : /var/www/html/futuresbattle/vendor/standard-webhooks/standard-webhooks/ |
Upload File : |
# Standard Webhooks Specification Contribution Guide Standard Webhooks is an evolving language. This repository contains the specification text as well as Pull Requests with suggested improvements and contributions. Contributions that do not change the interpretation of the spec but instead improve legibility, fix editorial errors, clear up ambiguity and improve examples are encouraged and are often merged by a spec Committer with little process. However, contributions that _do_ meaningfully change the interpretation of the spec must follow an RFC (Request For Comments) process led by a *champion* through a series of *stages* intended to improve *visibility*, allow for *discussion* to reach the best solution, and arrive at *consensus*. This process becomes even more important as Standard Webhooks's community broadens. When proposing or weighing-in on any issue or pull request, consider the [Code of Conduct](https://github.com/asyncapi/.github/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md) to better understand expected and unacceptable behavior. ## Guiding Principles Standard Webhooks's evolution is guided by a few principles. Suggested contributions should use these principles to guide the details of an RFC and decisions to move forward. * **Favor no change** As Standard Webhooks is implemented in many languages under the collaboration of a lot of individuals, incorporating any change has a high cost. Accordingly, proposed changes must meet a very high bar of added value. The burden of proof is on the contributor to illustrate this value. * **Enable new capabilities motivated by real use cases** Every change should intend on unlocking a real and reasonable use case. Real examples are always more compelling than theoretical ones, and common scenarios are more compelling than rare ones. RFCs should do more than offer a different way to reach an already achievable outcome. * **Simplicity and consistency over expressiveness and terseness** "Possible but awkward" is often favored over more complex alternatives. Simplicity (e.g. fewer concepts) is more important than expressing more sophisticated ideas or writing less. * **Preserve option value** It's hard to know what the future brings; whenever possible, decisions should be made that allow for more options in the future. Sometimes this is unintuitive: spec rules often begin more strict than necessary with a future option to loosen when motivated by a real use case. * **Understandability is just as important as correctness** The Standard Webhooks spec, despite describing technical behavior, is intended to be read by people. Use natural tone and include motivation and examples. ## RFC Contribution Champions Contributing to Standard Webhooks requires a lot of dedicated work. To set clear expectations and provide accountability, each proposed RFC (request for comments) must have a *champion* who is responsible for addressing feedback and completing next steps. An RFC may have multiple *champions*. The spec Committers are not responsible for completing RFCs which lack a *champion* (though a Committer may be a *champion* for an RFC). An RFC which does not have a *champion* may not progress through stages, and can become stale. Stale proposals may be picked up by a new *champion* or may be *rejected*. ## RFC Contribution Stages RFCs are guided by a *champion* through a series of stages: *strawman*, *proposal*, *draft*, and *accepted* (or *rejected*), each of which has suggested entrance criteria and next steps detailed below. RFCs typically advance one stage at a time, but may advance multiple stages at a time. Stage advancements occur on GitHub. In general, it's preferable to start with a pull request so that we can best evaluate the RFC in detail. However, starting with an issue is also permitted if the full details are not worked out. All RFCs start as either a *strawman* or *proposal*. ## Stage 0: *Strawman* An RFC at the *strawman* stage captures a described problem or partially-considered solutions. A *strawman* does not need to meet any entrance criteria. A *strawman's* goal is to prove or disprove a problem and guide discussion towards either rejection or a preferred solution. A *strawman* may be an issue or a pull request (though an illustrative pull request is preferrable). *There is no entrance criteria for a Strawman* As implied by the name [strawman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_proposal), the goal at this stage is to knock it down (*reject*) by considering other possible related solutions, showing that the motivating problem can be solved with no change to the specification, or that it is not aligned with the *guiding principles*. Once determined that the *strawman* is compelling, it should seek the entrance criteria for *proposal*. ## Stage 1: *Proposal* An RFC at the *proposal* stage is a solution to a problem with enough fidelity to be discussed in detail. It must be backed by a willing *champion*. A *proposal*'s goal is to make a compelling case for acceptance by describing both the problem and the solution via examples and spec edits. A *proposal* should be a pull request. *Entrance criteria:* * Identified *champion* * Clear explanation of problem and solution * Illustrative examples * Incomplete spec edits * Identification of potential concerns, challenges, and drawbacks A *proposal* is subject to the same discussion as a *strawman*: ensuring that it is well aligned with the *guiding principles*, is a problem worth solving, and is the preferred solution to that problem. A *champion* is not expected to have confidence in every detail at this stage and should instead focus on identifying and resolving issues and edge-cases. To better understand the technical ramifications of the *proposal*, a *champion* is encouraged to implement it in a Standard Webhooks library. Most *proposals* are expected to evolve or change and may be rejected. Therefore, it is unwise to rely on a *proposal* in a production environment. Standard Webhooks libraries *may* implement *proposals*, though are encouraged to not enable the *proposed* feature without explicit opt-in. ## Stage 2: *Draft* An RFC at the *draft* stage is a fully formed solution. There is consensus the problem identified should be solved, and this particular solution is preferred. A *draft's* goal is to precisely and completely describe the solution and resolve any concerns through library implementations. A *draft* must be a pull request. *Entrance criteria:* * Consensus the solution is preferred * Resolution of identified concerns and challenges * Precisely described with spec edits * Compliant implementation in the [Standard Webhooks JS Parser](https://www.github.com/asyncapi/parser-js) and the [Standard Webhooks JSON Schema](https://github.com/asyncapi/spec-json-schemas) (might not be merged) A *proposal* becomes a *draft* when the set of problems or drawbacks have been fully considered and accepted or resolved, and the solution is deemed desirable. A *draft*'s goal is to complete final spec edits that are ready to be merged and implement the *draft* in Standard Webhooks libraries along with tests to gain confidence that the spec text is sufficient. *Drafts* may continue to evolve and change, occasionally dramatically, and are not guaranteed to be accepted. Therefore, it is unwise to rely on a *draft* in a production environment. Standard Webhooks libraries *should* implement *drafts* to provide valuable feedback, though are encouraged not to enable the *draft* feature without explicit opt-in when possible. ## Stage 3: *Accepted* An RFC at the *accepted* stage is a completed solution. According to a spec Committer it is ready to be merged as-is into the spec document. The RFC is ready to be deployed in Standard Webhooks libraries. An *accepted* RFC must be implemented in the [Standard Webhooks JS Parser](https://www.github.com/asyncapi/parser-js) and the [Standard Webhooks JSON Schema](https://github.com/asyncapi/spec-json-schemas). *Entrance criteria:* * Consensus the solution is complete * Complete spec edits, including examples and prose * Compliant implementation in the [Standard Webhooks JS Parser](https://www.github.com/asyncapi/parser-js) and the [Standard Webhooks JSON Schema](https://github.com/asyncapi/spec-json-schemas) (fully tested and merged or ready to merge) A *draft* is *accepted* when the Committers have been convinced via implementations and tests that it appropriately handles all edge cases; that the spec changes not only precisely describe the new syntax and semantics but include sufficient motivating prose and examples; and that the RFC includes edits to any other affected areas of the spec. Once *accepted*, its *champion* should encourage adoption of the RFC by opening issues or pull requests on other popular Standard Webhooks libraries. An *accepted* RFC is merged into the Standard Webhooks spec's master branch by a Committer and will be included in the next released revision. ## Stage X: *Rejected* An RFC may be *rejected* at any point and for any reason. Most rejections occur when a *strawman* is proven to be unnecessary, is misaligned with the *guiding principles*, or fails to meet the entrance criteria to become a *proposal*. A *proposal* may become *rejected* for similar reasons as well as if it fails to reach consensus or loses the confidence of its *champion*. Likewise a *draft* may encounter unforeseen issues during implementations which cause it to lose consensus or the confidence of its *champion*. RFCs which have lost a *champion* will not be *rejected* immediately, but may become *rejected* if they fail to attract a new *champion*. Once *rejected*, an RFC will typically not be reconsidered. Reconsideration is possible if a *champion* believes the original reason for rejection no longer applies due to new circumstances or new evidence. ## References This document was adapted from the [AsyncAPI Specification Contribution Guide](https://github.com/asyncapi/spec/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md) which in turn was adapted from the [GraphQL Specification Contribution Guide](https://github.com/graphql/graphql-spec/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md).