Oneway and Mutual Dependency ElementRelationShip #1360
Conversation
| @@ -20,11 +20,17 @@ urlFragment: officedev-microsoft-teams-samples-app-hello-world-nodejs | |||
| * Tabs | |||
| * Bots | |||
| * Messaging Extensions | |||
| * Element RelationShip Property | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm new to sample app creation, but why do we not create a separate RT sample app yet use existing hello-world app to illustrate RT usage? This might create confusion to developers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also so far only elementRelationshipSet is covered. I don't see "hostMustSupportFunctionalities" yet.
| }, | ||
| "name": { | ||
| "short": "Hello World", | ||
| "full": "Hello World App for Microsoft Teams" | ||
| "short": "ElementRelationshipSet", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this an app for ElementRelationshipSet or for Hello World?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Created New sample, Comment fixed
| "title": "Card title" | ||
| } | ||
| { | ||
| "id": "composeExt_ID", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a searchME dependsOn bot case. Yet our hero case for RT in terms of command level dependency is really actionME dependsOn bot. And this actionME should also contain a botSentCard scenario.
Also suggest we explicitly use the "type" field to call out the type of the command.
| "botId": "${{AAD_APP_CLIENT_ID}}", | ||
| "commands": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "id": "getRandomText", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggest we use a more meaningful value for the id field, despite not necessarily needing UUID.
| "scopes": [ | ||
| "personal" | ||
| "elementRelationshipSet": { | ||
| "oneWayDependencies": [ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's add one more oneWayDepend scenario that's about a tab dependsOn ME (at ME level, instead of command level)
|  | ||
|
|
||
| **Outlook - Oneway Dependency** | ||
| **Outlook doesn't support bots, and since Message Extensions depend on a bot, the Message Extension doesn't work in Outlook** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is wrong in two aspects:
- If RT is used correctly to specify actionME dependsOn bot, then the actionME shouldn't even show up in Outlook. But in your illustration, the command shows up.
- The fact that the command shows up as your illustration displays is actually a bug - the command shows up yet doesn't work. It doesn't represent the correct end result of using RT.
Mohammed-MSFT
added
duplicate
No description provided.