API docs: distinction between GET and PUT (and POST) entity types #1432

New Issue

WofWca · 2023-03-15T13:47:40Z

WofWca commented

2023-03-15 13:47:40 +00:00

Consider the "create task" endpoint:

066c26f83e/pkg/models/tasks.go (L909)

Currently the docs say that you can pass attachments, created_by, index, labels (with all the fields, like created_by, description), but it looks like they're actually ignored and overridden.

I think there needs to be a separate struct (called something like TaskInitDict) that lists all the fields that are actually supported by the endpoint.

This should also allow to document things like the fact that if you pass position: 0 for a task, the backend will actually set it to a default one, and state which fields are required and stuff.

I may not be seeing the bigger picture and possible caveats, but it's my superficial impression.

Consider the "create task" endpoint: https://kolaente.dev/vikunja/api/src/commit/066c26f83e1e066bdc9d80b4642db1df0d6a77eb/pkg/models/tasks.go#L909 Currently the docs say that you can pass `attachments`, `created_by`, `index`, `labels` (with all the fields, like `created_by`, `description`), but it looks like they're actually ignored and overridden. I think there needs to be a separate struct (called something like `TaskInitDict`) that lists all the fields that are actually supported by the endpoint. This should also allow to document things like the fact that if you pass `position: 0` for a task, [the backend will actually set it to a default one](https://kolaente.dev/vikunja/api/src/commit/066c26f83e1e066bdc9d80b4642db1df0d6a77eb/pkg/models/tasks.go#L951-L953), and state which fields are required and stuff. I may not be seeing the bigger picture and possible caveats, but it's my superficial impression.

👍 1

konrad commented

2023-03-15 15:23:05 +00:00

That would probably be a reasonable idea. We do need to make sure the "new" structs would be properly maintained and not forgotten when making changes to the other structs.

Do you want to send a PR?

That would probably be a reasonable idea. We do need to make sure the "new" structs would be properly maintained and not forgotten when making changes to the other structs. Do you want to send a PR?

dpschen commented

2023-03-15 15:52:23 +00:00

I think this could also be good for the zod based types in the frontend.
See vikunja/frontend#2225

I think this could also be good for the zod based types in the frontend. See https://kolaente.dev/vikunja/frontend/pulls/2225

WofWca commented

2023-03-15 16:42:52 +00:00

Poster

make sure the "new" structs would be properly maintained and not forgotten

I thought it'd be possible to actually integrate them in the code base in a DRY fashion and not purely for the purpose of generating docs.

Do you want to send a PR?

Go is not my first language. So probably not soon if at all.

> make sure the "new" structs would be properly maintained and not forgotten I thought it'd be possible to actually integrate them in the code base in a DRY fashion and not purely for the purpose of generating docs. > Do you want to send a PR? Go is not my first language. So probably not soon if at all.

👍 1

konrad commented

2023-03-16 09:00:52 +00:00

I thought it'd be possible to actually integrate them in the code base in a DRY fashion and not purely for the purpose of generating docs.

That's not that easy, given how the current architecture is structured. Right now all crud routes use the same structs for one entity.

> I thought it'd be possible to actually integrate them in the code base in a DRY fashion and not purely for the purpose of generating docs. That's not that easy, given how the current architecture is structured. Right now all crud routes use the same structs for one entity.

Sign in to join this conversation.