[FLINK-25807][rest][docs] Deduplicate fields that only differ by naming convention

[zentol]

No description provided.

[flinkbot]

Thanks a lot for your contribution to the Apache Flink project. I'm the @flinkbot. I help the community
to review your pull request. We will use this comment to track the progress of the review.

Automated Checks

Last check on commit fbc6046 (Tue Jan 25 14:23:57 UTC 2022)

Warnings:

• No documentation files were touched! Remember to keep the Flink docs up to date!

_{Mention the bot in a comment to re-run the automated checks.}

Review Progress

• ❓ 1. The [description] looks good.
• ❓ 2. There is [consensus] that the contribution should go into to Flink.
• ❓ 3. Needs [attention] from.
• ❓ 4. The change fits into the overall [architecture].
• ❓ 5. Overall code [quality] is good.

Please see the Pull Request Review Guide for a full explanation of the review process.

Details

The Bot is tracking the review progress through labels. Labels are applied according to the order of the review items. For consensus, approval by a Flink committer of PMC member is required

Bot commands

The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

• @flinkbot approve description to approve one or more aspects (aspects: description, consensus, architecture and quality)
• @flinkbot approve all to approve all aspects
• @flinkbot approve-until architecture to approve everything until architecture
• @flinkbot attention @username1 [@username2 ..] to require somebody's attention
• @flinkbot disapprove architecture to remove an approval you gave earlier

[flinkbot]

CI report:

• 27df4c3 Azure: SUCCESS

Bot commands

The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

• @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

[dmvk]

Note: this issue has been introduce by https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-13949

[dmvk]

Hmm, it dates back even further -> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-11232

@zentol I'm wondering, should we rather fix this in the UI and get rid of the duplicate field?

[dmvk]

Second thoughts, we want to avoid a breaking change here. Would it be possible to leverage the swagger annotation here instead?

eg. https://docs.swagger.io/swagger-core/v1.5.0/apidocs/io/swagger/annotations/ApiModelProperty.html#hidden()

[zentol]

we want to avoid a breaking change here

It's not a breaking change in any case. The REST API still responds with both fields and existing clients will continue to work. Any code written against the new client is, well, new, and thus can't be broken.

Would it be possible to leverage the swagger annotation

Yes, this is possible. I forgot that we directly pass the request/response bodies to swagger.

[dmvk]

LGTM 👍