Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improve REST API Swagger experience #2374

Open
ivansenic opened this issue Jan 12, 2023 · 0 comments
Open

Improve REST API Swagger experience #2374

ivansenic opened this issue Jan 12, 2023 · 0 comments
Assignees

Comments

@ivansenic
Copy link
Contributor

I was trying to reproduce the issue from the #2373, by using the REST API swagger. However, it's the UI is not really user friendly.. Here are some suggestions:

  • keyspaces names, as well as table names should be consistent in the examples and default parameter values.. Otherwise when in Try out mode user has to consistently change those names.. For example, in create keyspace the name of the keyspace in the example is killrvideo and then in many other places keyspace is cycling. we need to ensure that a flow like create keyspace -> get tables -> create table -> get/search rows -> add row works without altering the param values all the time
  • create table example returns:
     {
       "description": "At least one partition key must be specified for table or materialized view 'cycling_events' [Column{name=emailaddress, type=text}]",
       "code": 500,
       "grpcStatus": null,
       "internalTxId": null
     }
    
  • request body examples should be real swagger examples, so that I can correctly test them and not written as part of the endpoint description
  • the order of the parameters should always be logical:
    • required parameters should be specified first
    • order of parameters should be logical, f.e. [keyspace, table, whatever]
    • example of current search endpoint (everything mixed):
      image
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants