So if you do not have any attachments and try to leave attachments off you get an error that attachments is a required field. A better definition would be attachments?: {...}[];
The workaround is to add the field attachments: [], if your message doesn't have attachments, which the native code handles fine. Since there is a simple workaround, this issue is not urgent.
Sorry, you were so fast getting 6.0.1 published that I didn't get my problem reported in time. (Impressive turnaround, though!)
The
attachments
type should be optional. The native code checks thatattachments
exists, so it should be OK to leave it off.The attachments type is currently:
So if you do not have any attachments and try to leave
attachments
off you get an error thatattachments
is a required field. A better definition would beattachments?: {...}[];
The workaround is to add the field
attachments: [],
if your message doesn't have attachments, which the native code handles fine. Since there is a simple workaround, this issue is not urgent.