Currently, https://slack.dev/python-slack-sdk/socket-mode/index.html has only Events API example. We add interactivity patterns (e.g., shortcuts, modal submission, button clicks, etc.) in the page.
@~tjstum Thanks for your prompt reply here!
I might suggest adding something to the docs of SocketModeRequest (and the example usages) mentioning that the WebhookClient/AsyncWebhookClient can be used to work with the response_url provided in the payload.
This can be helpful for other developers too! Perhaps, rather than docstrings, updating this documentation page to have an interactivity payload pattern with response_url usage would be a good way to improve the visibility of functionalities.
Maybe also exposing the response_url as a property (again, to help promote visibility).
Thanks for the suggestion but we are not planning to have the property. The class represents the whole message structure as-is. No modification and addition are intended. I would recommend transforming SocketModeRequest data to your own class with utility methods (like we do in Bolt, which is equivalent to your app framework).
I'm thinking to create a new issue for the document improvement and then close this issue. Is that fine with you? Thanks again for your feedback and inputs here.
Originally posted by @seratch in #1075 (comment)
Currently, https://slack.dev/python-slack-sdk/socket-mode/index.html has only Events API example. We add interactivity patterns (e.g., shortcuts, modal submission, button clicks, etc.) in the page.
@~tjstum Thanks for your prompt reply here!
This can be helpful for other developers too! Perhaps, rather than docstrings, updating this documentation page to have an interactivity payload pattern with
response_urlusage would be a good way to improve the visibility of functionalities.Thanks for the suggestion but we are not planning to have the property. The class represents the whole message structure as-is. No modification and addition are intended. I would recommend transforming
SocketModeRequestdata to your own class with utility methods (like we do in Bolt, which is equivalent to your app framework).I'm thinking to create a new issue for the document improvement and then close this issue. Is that fine with you? Thanks again for your feedback and inputs here.
Originally posted by @seratch in #1075 (comment)