kerata
commented
8 years ago https://developer.nutritionix.com/docs/v2/ "we recommend using API v2.0 for experimentation only"
v2.0 is on development as it was stated in documentation in their site.
I think we should not use this call, instead use wild card search in v1.1 which could be done by our current API call search. It already supports this call but bear in mind, this is an EXPENSIVE! call so caching is important, either by server or by client.
Example replacement would be:
Request: http://ec2-52-89-168-70.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com:8080/api/ingredient/search/tom* Response: { "total_hits": 8555, "max_score": 0.6109619, "hits": [ { "_index": "f762ef22-e660-434f-9071-a10ea6691c27", "_type": "item", "_id": "51c3bd6897c3e6d8d3b476c8", "_score": 0.6109619, "fields": { "item_id": "51c3bd6897c3e6d8d3b476c8", "item_name": "Vinaigrette, Smoked Tomato", "brand_name": "Tom's", "nf_serving_size_qty": 1, "nf_serving_size_unit": "serving" } }, ...... instead Request: http://ec2-52-89-168-70.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com:8080/api/ingredient/autocomplete/tom Response: [ { "id": 181, "text": "tomatoes" }, { "id": 124113, "text": "tomatillos" }, ....
PS: Most likely autocomplete is faster and easier but not stable at the moment
Ingredient autocomplete call returns status 500 sometimes.