omitempty should be set for ContentTypes and Extensions

[smaeda-ks]

These are optional parameters.

Fixes fastly/terraform-provider-fastly#66

[Integralist]

Is there ever a scenario where we want to accept empty strings? If so, then we'd want the type to be a pointer reference so we can distinguish between a field not set vs a field that was explicitly set to an empty string.

[smaeda-ks]

hmm, thanks for asking that. Let me test a bit more and will follow up.

[smaeda-ks]

@Integralist Confirmed that we don't need to accept empty strings for CreateGzipInput struct. If content_types and extensions are not specified in a POST request, the default values are assigned automatically by the API backend.

[Integralist]

Apologies in the slow reply.

The scenario I was curious about was more about does it make sense for content_types and extensions to be set to an empty value. For example, if I use the gzip CREATE api endpoint directly (e.g. not using go-fastly) and I pass:

extensions=html+css+js
content_types=

Would the API still create a default for content_types or would it attempt to content_types to an empty value? And would that be something we expect users to do?

In the above example I'm trying to say I only care about gzipping files with the extensions 'html', 'css' and 'js' and I don't really care about gzipping responses that have a certain content_type.

But I guess it doesn't really matter if the API has provided its own defaults for content_types because if all I care about is what's in extensions then that should be sufficient.

[smaeda-ks]

@Integralist I believe I sent a link in DM that refers to our internal PR.

Would the API still create a default for content_types or would it attempt to content_types to an empty value?

I mentioned this in that PR, but we also had a bug in our API backend that we fail to set our default value if an empty value is sent for those parameters. This is going to be fixed very soon once that PR is deployed.

That said, now this public PR doesn't really matter since we also work around that in our API backend as well.
But, in that sense, since sending an empty value would produce the exact same result as not sending it, there's now zero reason users want to send an empty value and hence omitempty is an appropriate option here.

[Integralist]

Going to approve, but take a look at my latest comment before this and let me know if this changes your opinion at all. If not, then let me know and I'll go ahead and merge this PR (also, let me know if you're blocked on this change being cut into a new release -- otherwise I might wait on cutting a new go-fastly release until we have more stuff to include in the release).