The generated swagger lacks a lot of information provided by eve

pyeve / eve-swagger

Swagger extension for Eve-powered RESTful APIs

http://python-eve.org

Other

154 stars 43 forks source link

The generated swagger lacks a lot of information provided by eve #54

Closed fernandocamargoai closed 5 years ago

fernandocamargoai commented 6 years ago

If PAGINATION is True, every resource's GET request could have the QUERY_PAGE and QUERY_MAX_RESULTS parameters with the default value of PAGINATION_DEFAULT.
If EMBEDDING is True, every GET request could have QUERY_EMBEDDED parameter.
If SORTING is True, every resource's GET request could have the QUERY_SORT parameter.
If PROJECTION is True, every GET request could have the QUERY_PROJECTION parameter.
If VERSIONING is True, every GET request could have VERSION_PARAM parameter.
All the possible errors (400, 422 and so on) should be documented.
The response of resource's GET request should include ITEMS and META fields.
The resource's definition should include LAST_UPDATED, DATE_CREATED and ETAG fields. VERSION, LATEST_VERSION and DELETED should also be included if these functionalities are turned on.

Of course it's a little bit more complex, since any resource could overwrite the global configuration.

I'm planning to submit PR's soon to solve this issue.

fernandocamargoai commented 6 years ago

I generated the Swagger documentation of my project and updated it with the desired information. I'd like you to validate if, when I start working on eve-swagger, I can make it I did with this documentation:

https://github.com/GoDatascience/pyor/blob/develop/backend/swagger.yml

nicolaiarocci commented 6 years ago

You can use https://editor.swagger.io to validate any swagger file. Yours seems to validate just fine!

fernandocamargoai commented 6 years ago

I'm validating there. What I mean is that I want to know if you agree with the way I've described the various parameters, like "page", "embedded" and so on. Because I'm planning to do it the same way in the future PR's.

nicolaiarocci commented 6 years ago

Oh, sorry. I guess that's what happens when you're in a rush and don't pay the deserved attention to the matter at hand. I find your parameters definition strategy excellent. I would love to merge such a PR.

stale[bot] commented 6 years ago

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

rmlopes commented 6 years ago

There's a lot on this issue to be done. I can devote some time to part of it, some things I absolutely need right now, for instance, I would like to have the automatic fields ('_created', etc) included in the response objects docs as well.

@nicolaiarocci can I have some guide-lines on this? I was looking for the objectid ('_id') which is included in the docs, but I can't find something specific that deals with it.

stale[bot] commented 5 years ago

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.