Skip to content

[Bug]: optional tenant in spec vs non-null tenant + misleading docs in Java SDK #844

@Tyler-Bath

Description

@Tyler-Bath

What happened?

The A2A protocol allows listing tasks without a tenant (e.g. GET /tasks as the primary HTTP binding). The Java SDK models tenant on ListTasksParams in a way that conflicts with how other optional parameters are modeled: tenant must be non-null (empty string is used for “unset”), while sibling optional fields use @nullable and null. Javadoc also claims InvalidParamsError for null tenant, but the code uses Assert.checkNotNullParam, which throws IllegalArgumentException.

Should tenant be made nullable so it does not have to be provided on List tasks and/or other requests?

Relevant log output

Code of Conduct

  • I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

No labels
No labels

Type

No fields configured for Bug.

Projects

No projects

Milestone

No milestone

Relationships

None yet

Development

No branches or pull requests

Issue actions