Feature request: allow specifying Operation IDs

[pvgoran]

The auto-generated Operation IDs are often long, ugly and unconvenient to work with. It would be good to be able to specify Operation IDs manually in the tinyspec files.

For example, it could be done like this (using tests/endpoints/sources/complex.endpoints.tinyspec as a base):

    // Update resources                                                                                               
    @token updateResource = PATCH /parent/:a/resources/:b:integer (variant)?c&d?&e:boolean {f, g?, h: i[]}                             
        => 200 {resource: Resource} # Another comment                                                                 
        => 404 NotFoundError  

This would make updateResource the Operation ID. The syntax feels natural and non-intrusive, but of course it could be different.

I suppose I can implement this in the code, as long as I know what syntax to use.

[Ajaxy]

I like the idea. How about moving it even before token, so it represents the logic of name = definition pair?

  // Update resources                                                                                               
  updateResource = @token PATCH /parent/:a/resources/:b:integer (variant)?c&d?&e:boolean {f, g?, h: i[]}                             
    => 200 {resource: Resource} # Another comment                                                                 
    => 404 NotFoundError  

[Ajaxy]

Another option would be to move it backward representing definition "name" format.

  // Update resources                                                                                               
  @token PATCH /parent/:a/resources/:b:integer (variant)?c&d?&e:boolean {f, g?, h: i[]} "updateResource"                          
    => 200 {resource: Resource} # Another comment                                                                 
    => 404 NotFoundError  

  @token GET /users "getUsers"
    => {users: User[]}

Just an idea, I'm OK with both variants.

[pvgoran]

How about moving it even before token, so it represents the logic of name = definition pair?

The name before the tags has its merits, I'm ok with this. (I was placing it after the tags by following the stylistics of Java annotations.)

Another option would be to move it backward representing definition "name" format.

I don't like this. The definition can be quite long, and the name at the end will be hard to notice and track.

[Ajaxy]

Hey @pvgoran, are you still planning to implement this?

[pvgoran]

@Ajaxy Yes, just a bit later. Right now, I'm preoccupied with the holiday activities.