feat(web-api): add chat_{appendStream|startStream|stopStream} methods

[zimeg]

Summary

This PR adds the chat_{appendStream|startStream|stopStream} methods to slack_sdk 👾 ✨

Testing

response = client.chat_startStream(channel="C0123456789")
client.chat_appendStream(channel="C0123456789", ts=response["ts"], markdown_text="...")
client.chat_stopStream(channel="C0123456789", ts=response["ts"])

Category

• slack_sdk.web.WebClient (sync/async) (Web API client)

Requirements

• I've read and understood the Contributing Guidelines and have done my best effort to follow them.
• I've read and agree to the Code of Conduct.
• I've run python3 -m venv .venv && source .venv/bin/activate && ./scripts/run_validation.sh after making the changes.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 84.94%. Comparing base (ed1893d) to head (2112b8d).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on ai-apps.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           ai-apps    #1745      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    84.90%   84.94%   +0.04%     
===========================================
  Files          113      113              
  Lines        12886    12916      +30     
===========================================
+ Hits         10941    10972      +31     
+ Misses        1945     1944       -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[WilliamBergamin]

This is looking good 💯

We should probably include these changes in tests/slack_sdk_async/web/test_web_client_coverage.py

Since these endpoints seems fairly straight forward it may be a good idea to add integration tests for them in integration_tests/web

[WilliamBergamin]

Seems weird that git is detecting this as a deletion rather then a move in slack_sdk/web/client.py

[WilliamBergamin]

I think we only need this when we pass the kwargs is passed though json= to api_call 🤔

[zimeg]

@WilliamBergamin Thanks for catching this! I think we can prefer params in 5ce303d which works well in testing, unless you have a preference to using json which ought work too?

[WilliamBergamin]

Praise 🙏

[mwbrooks]

🙏🏻 Looking solid @zimeg!

🧪 I'm going to build this package and test locally, but I just wanted to drop a comment that the APIs look accurate from my perspective.

[mwbrooks]

👌🏻 Great catch on setting these as optional.

[mwbrooks]

✅ Excellent work @zimeg! 🚀 Rockets away!

[zimeg]

@WilliamBergamin @mwbrooks Kind appreciation for the reviews of implementation and confirmation of arguments in these changes. I will merge it now for a prerelease we can experiment more with.