Open arnoldnipper opened 4 months ago
Do we really need extra _count
fields when the sets themselves are returned in the data?
curl -s https://www.peeringdb.com/api/fac/2148 |jq '{nets: .data[].org.net_set|length, carriers: .data[].org.carrier_set|length, facs: .data[].org.fac_set|length, ixs: .data[].org.ix_set|length}'
{
"nets": 1,
"carriers": 1,
"facs": 1,
"ixs": 0
}
EDIT: ah, I see what you mean- net_set
has only one entry but net_count
is 12.
If we use obj_count fields for everything but carrier we should probably do that
PC call: @grizz to help figure out the discrepancy between net_set
length and net_count
, same for ixs.
Do we really need extra
_count
fields when the sets themselves are returned in the data?
You don't get sets with depth=0. Hence _count
fields are gratuitous information and have been added for exactly that reason. Hence, the answer is "yes".
net_count
is off the facility
net_set
is off the org
Ahh makes sense, thx Matt
Describe the bug The field
carrier_count
is missing from thefac
objectTo Reproduce
However, https://www.peeringdb.com/carrier/512 is in that facilitiy
Expected behavior
Show all counters