About API code comments and some behavior.

[toras]

Hi


 > (If you are working from a repo checkout, it would be more helpful if you could send a diff.)

You are right. I wasn't used to it.
I will do so on future occasions.

 >> +            "gist": <gist_object>
 > What is gist object? That should perhaps be clarified. Or perhaps it is a bug that it is returned ...

I wrote it in the sense that the <gist_object> in the result of this 'create_gist' is JSON with the same structure as the result 
of 'get_gist'.
It's information about the created gist and I think it's the correct return value.
To avoid misinterpretation as an empty object, I imitated 'create_user' comment and wrote it like this.

Specifically, <gist_object> was such JSON data.
   "gist": {"gist_id": 1, "type": "public", "access_id": "1", "description": "", "url": "http://localhost:9999/_admin/gists/1", 
"expires": -1.0, "created_on": "2022-10-14T14:20:24.625"}


 >> - The 'parent' parameter of 'update_repo_group' does not work.
 > A quick look:  The update_repo_group API arguments seems to be handled by
 > https://kallithea-scm.org/repos/kallithea/files/7037365a/kallithea/model/repo_group.py#L278 . So perhaps the code in api.py
 > should pass it as 'parent_group_id' instead of 'parent_group'?
 > (But also, 'owner' doesn't seem to be handled at all. Does owner change really work for you? But also, I don't think it matters
 > much who owns a repo group. Admin rights does the same thing. So repo group owner should perhaps just be removed from api.py and
 > documentation?)

I'm not confident in my reading comprehension, but...

As you say, it looks like it would be necessary to pass it by 'parent_group_id'.
Also, is it necessary to not pass the 'parent_group_id' if it is not moved?
And I think that api.py should also resolve with get_repo_group_or_error() so that both name and id values are available.

And 'owner' certainly doesn't work either. I hadn't noticed.
Looking at the comments on RepoGroupModel.create(), did the implementer plan to use owner in the future?
There is also a countermeasure to make it changeable with update, right?
But for consistency in the current situation, it seems reasonable to remove it from the API parameters and documentation.


 > Anyway:
 > I also pushed some further cleanup of the documentation in api.py and api.rst .That's on the *stable* branch. It would be great
 > if they could converge, and we could generate api.rst from api.py .
 > If you want to improve documentation further, take a look at https://kallithea-scm.org/repos/kallithea/pull-request/325/_/api
 > and propose api.py changes to make a grand unification.

Thank you. But as of now I do not have any further changes.



Thanks

-- 
toras9000

On 2022/10/14 21:51, Mads Kiilerich wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Thank you. (If you are working from a repo checkout, it would be more helpful if you could send a diff.) I haven't verified in 
> detail, but all the changes seem plausible ;-) I have pushed them to the stable branch.
> 
> One question though:
> 
>>            id : <id_given_in_input>
>>            result : {
>>              "msg": "created new gist",
>> -            "gist": {}
>> +            "gist": <gist_object>
>>            }
>>            error :  null
> 
> What is gist object? That should perhaps be clarified. Or perhaps it is a bug that it is returned ...
> 
>> - The 'parent' parameter of 'update_repo_group' does not work.
>>   It appears to accept the 'parent' parameter, but specifying it seems to have no effect. 
> 
> A quick look:  The update_repo_group API arguments seems to be handled by 
> https://kallithea-scm.org/repos/kallithea/files/7037365a/kallithea/model/repo_group.py#L278 . So perhaps the code in api.py 
> should pass it as 'parent_group_id' instead of 'parent_group'?
> (But also, 'owner' doesn't seem to be handled at all. Does owner change really work for you? But also, I don't think it matters 
> much who owns a repo group. Admin rights does the same thing. So repo group owner should perhaps just be removed from api.py and 
> documentation?)
> 
> Anyway:
> I also pushed some further cleanup of the documentation in api.py and api.rst .That's on the *stable* branch. It would be great 
> if they could converge, and we could generate api.rst from api.py .
> If you want to improve documentation further, take a look at https://kallithea-scm.org/repos/kallithea/pull-request/325/_/api 
> and propose api.py changes to make a grand unification.
> 
> /Mads
> 
> 
> On 13/10/2022 15:00, toras wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>>
>> There was an API-related topic a little while ago,so there may be things that are currently being changed, but I recently 
>> noticed something while writing a client that uses the API, so I'd like to report it.
>>
>> - The comments in api.py have some differences from the implementation.
>>   I tried calling the API and attached a file that changed the part that is different from the result.
>>   (Based on commit 7037365a7bc3.)
>>   I don't know if this is necessary, but for your information.
>>
>> - The 'parent' parameter of 'update_repo_group' does not work.
>>   It appears to accept the 'parent' parameter, but specifying it seems to have no effect.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> -- 
>> toras9000
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> kallithea-general mailing list
>> kallithea-general at sfconservancy.org
>> https://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/kallithea-general
> 
>