Initial pass at AEP-135 (Standard Methods: Delete)

[mkistler]

This PR is a first cut at AEP-135, Standard Methods: Delete.

The effort highlighted a number of points we should discuss and settle on before the barn-raising. A short list:

• Should we try to get AEP-8 (Style guide) in place before the barn-raising?
• What to say about snake case field names convention
• How to handle certain "proto-specific" terminology:
  • RPC
  • messages
  • return codes
• HTTP Terminology
  • use "verb" instead of "method" for GET, PUT, POST, etc. Method is already overloaded.
• We should have consistent order of oas and proto tabs (I like alpha order ;-))
• Are there VSCode extensions we should recommend? Maybe
  • Better Jinja
  • Spectral
• Can use use the simpler markdown reference syntax (drop trailing [])?

[rofrankel]

Mostly looks good, but I noticed some copy/paste mistakes and also had one or two non-superficial questions.

I didn't properly review the embeddable OAS snippets because I don't have much OAS experience (maybe we can get Marsh to review those)...but once everything else is resolved I can take a look if helpful.

[toumorokoshi]

nice! left a few comments.

There's a few blocking conversations I'd love to talk through

• eliminating deviation in returning the resource in the soft-delete pattern.
• eliminating allow_missing.

we can keep discussing in-thread or maybe in our weekly?

[mkistler]

I think I have addressed all PR comments and marked them as resolved.

@rofrankel please review and approve or leave more feedback. Your approval is required as you originally requested changes.

Happy for anyone else that wants to review as well, but hoping to drive this to closure quickly.

[rofrankel]

Sorry for the latency on this.

Also, I may not have caught all the cases where "library" should change back to "google".

[mkistler]

What is the best path forward here? I will gladly restore all the original guidance for the Google AIP if that will unblock progress. Can we agree to take that as the initial cut and leave debates on the wisdom of Google's guidance to a future PR?

[mkistler]

@rofrankel I've addressed most of your remaining comments. Tagged you to re-review.

[rofrankel]

Added a few non-trivial comments, otherwise LGTM.

[mkistler]

@rofrankel I pushed back on the duplicated HTTP guidance and fixed all the rest.

Please re-review.

[toumorokoshi]

LGTM on my side, thanks!