Closed foxkiong closed 4 years ago
For clarification, this would document an API that would be called like this:
https://mysite.com/my-path?keyword=test1&type=test2&[...]&field=test6
?
The changes seem fine to me. I don't mind the convenience class at all.
However, I like to always be able to look at an example! Can you add something to the respective sample project?
Good idea! I will work out an example in the sample project for clarification.
For clarification, this would document an API that would be called like this:
https://mysite.com/my-path?keyword=test1&type=test2&[...]&field=test6
?
yes ,exactly!
hi @jnallard , I'd added the sample , appreciate if you can review it. thanks!
@foxkiong Thanks for making the changes!
The current way of annotating operations requires every query string to be a primitive type of parameter, such as:
`private async Task<PagedResult> GetUserGroupChannelsAsync(
It will be desirable to be able to annotate such method in such a way:
private async Task<PagedResult<Channel>> GetAllChannelsAsync( [RouteParam(ParameterIn.Query, Name = "QueryChannels", ParamType = typeof(QueryChannels)] QueryChannels queryChannels)
where the QueryChannels object is annotated on its own class:
` Model("Query Channels")] public class QueryChannels : ChannelDirectoryQuery<PagedResult>
{
[ModelProperty(Ignore = true)]
public Guid? ChannelId { get; set; }