feat(all): introduce new namespace endpoints #390
Conversation
donch1989
changed the title
donch1989
force-pushed
the
huitang/ins-5404
branch
3 times, most recently
from
ee503bc to
1520311
Compare
| @@ -14,8 +15,62 @@ on: | |||
| - 'openapiv2/vdp/**' | |||
|
|
|||
| jobs: | |||
| sync-openapi-private: | |||
| sync-openapi-private-dev: | |||
| name: Keep private (dev) docs in sync with latest pull request | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see value in this (I think it'll ease the frontend review and it opens the door for our docs maintainers to be part of the review process), but my concern is that the depoloyed version won't be clear (we won't have one deployed version per PR). Is there a way we can add a reference to the PR or the commit?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let me check if we can add the commit hash or pr name in the doc title.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can show the PR ID in the title.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice 🤩 I think one version per PR will force us to upgrade our tier and that might not be worth but this will help us to avoid confusion when reviewing the docs.
it opens the door for our docs maintainers to be part of the review process
Maybe this can be done only on the staging version once a PR is merged. Maybe even only once per sprint to reduce the review load.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it opens the door for our docs maintainers to be part of the review process
Maybe this can be done only on the staging version once a PR is merged. Maybe even only once per sprint to reduce the review load.
I think the dev document can help the engineering team with the initial review. The staging document will serve as a second round of review for all team members.
| default: | ||
| description: An unexpected error response. | ||
| schema: | ||
| $ref: '#/definitions/rpcStatus' | ||
| parameters: | ||
| - name: ownerId | ||
| - name: namespaceId |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This will require extra maintenance (I think this can be achieved by adding field_configuration: {path_param_name: ...} in the proto contract) but namespaceID (and similar initialisms) look so much better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agree that initialisms namespaceID looks better. The issue with initialisms isn't just in the path parameters, it also appears in query parameters and even in the body. If we want to change this, we should do it all at once for consistency.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah I hadn't thought of that. Perhaps keeping the configuration in all the fields is a bit verbose and a maintenance burden. Drawbacks of using camelCase in a protocol opinionated about snake_case 🙃
donch1989
force-pushed
the
huitang/ins-5404
branch
from
d0f65bc to
c7beae8
Compare
… endpoints (#392) Because - #390 removed the owner type prefix in favour of a namespace ID in most endpoints. - This removes the need for the clients to know the type of an owner in order to make a request. - New dashboard enpdoints weren't included in this refactor as they were added in parallel. This commit - Uses the namespace ID in dashboard endpoints. - Changes are applied directly as these endpoints aren't in production yet. --------- Co-authored-by: droplet-bot <[email protected]>
Because
This commit
rdmecli tool for CI and validation.