show feature availability in API specification #289

KtorZ · 2019-05-21T06:20:57Z

Issue Number

N/A

Overview

I have removed the"priority" from the specification and added a "status" indicating the availability of a particular feature in the API.

Comments

As requested by Chris. Makes it easier for externals to know what's available or not.

A preview:

jonathanknowles · 2019-05-21T06:59:53Z

specifications/api/swagger.yaml


        Return a list of known wallets, ordered from oldest to newest.
+
+        > (1) Wallets are currently returned without any particular ordering.


Hi @KtorZ. A quick question: don't the following statements contradict one another?

Return a list of known wallets, ordered from oldest to newest.

Wallets are currently returned without any particular ordering.

Yes. Hence the "incomplete" status 😅

@KtorZ Fair enough.
One more question: is it actually desirable that we (eventually) return wallets in order from oldest to newest? Where does this requirement come from? I see there is a related issue here: #250

The requirement comes from Daedalus, as the first consumers of this API they requested this and, I believe it makes sense from the API-perspective to have some sort of ordering available when listing resources on a particular endpoint such that clients may expect the same response from the same request and somewhat predict what the answer should be.

Thanks for clarifying!

jonathanknowles · 2019-05-21T07:02:44Z

specifications/api/swagger.yaml

@@ -798,16 +798,21 @@ paths:
      tags: ["Wallets"]
      summary: List
      description: |
-        Priority [Very High]
+        <p align="right">status: <strong>incomplete¹</strong></p>


@KtorZ

Interesting that it is possible to embed HTML within these fields. Questions:

Is this HTML specific to one tool?

Does this embedding of HTML affect interoperability with other tools that visualize swagger specifications?

Hmmm.

No.

No -- shouldn't.

The swagger specification is quite clear about the "description" field and says:

A short description of the application. GFM syntax can be used for rich text representation.

Where GFM here stands for Github Flavored Markdown. Being markdown means that, we are allowed to put basic HTML too since that's what markdown is the end :)

It means we should be able to add emojis too

O-M-G.

Understood. Thanks for the clarification!

KtorZ · 2019-05-21T08:08:16Z

bors try

iohk-bors · 2019-05-21T08:20:09Z

try

Build succeeded

continuous-integration/travis-ci/push

jonathanknowles · 2019-05-21T09:11:13Z

specifications/api/swagger.yaml

@@ -887,7 +897,8 @@ paths:
      operationId: listTransactions
      tags: ["Transactions"]
      summary: List
-      description: Priority [High]
+      description: |
+        <p align="right">status: <strong>not implemented</strong></p>


To me, the phrase "not implemented" might be read as a deliberate decision to not implement something.

Perhaps we could write "not yet implemented" here?

Hmmm... I don't think so 😅 ... If something wasn't going to be implemented, it wouldn't be in the API specification at all in a first place. Here the meaning is quite unambiguous.

Fair enough. (My original thinking was prompted by the use of "isn't yet supported." elsewhere.)

jonathanknowles · 2019-05-21T09:24:36Z

specifications/api/swagger.yaml


        Return a list of known wallets, ordered from oldest to newest.
+
+        > (1) Wallets are currently returned without any particular ordering.


Thanks for clarifying!

jonathanknowles · 2019-05-21T09:25:41Z

specifications/api/swagger.yaml

@@ -887,7 +897,8 @@ paths:
      operationId: listTransactions
      tags: ["Transactions"]
      summary: List
-      description: Priority [High]
+      description: |
+        <p align="right">status: <strong>not implemented</strong></p>


Fair enough. (My original thinking was prompted by the use of "isn't yet supported." elsewhere.)

KtorZ · 2019-05-21T09:26:41Z

bors r+

289: show feature availability in API specification r=KtorZ a=KtorZ # Issue Number  N/A # Overview  - [ ] I have removed the"priority" from the specification and added a "status" indicating the availability of a particular feature in the API. # Comments  As requested by Chris. Makes it easier for externals to know what's available or not. A preview: ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5680256/58074137-bdc26f00-7ba4-11e9-95b5-33ff723e0f2a.png) ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5680256/58074150-c6b34080-7ba4-11e9-83a5-943877e14fd7.png) ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5680256/58074161-cfa41200-7ba4-11e9-8d83-0948b129e856.png) ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5680256/58074177-dd599780-7ba4-11e9-867e-5047012b1f93.png) ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5680256/58074188-e5193c00-7ba4-11e9-845c-cacfd34a9fc9.png)  295: fix shuffle tests in CoinSelectionSpec once and for all r=KtorZ a=KtorZ # Issue Number  #291 # Overview  - [ ] I have removed the precondition about the list length in favor of a correct generator # Comments  Turns out that the problem wasn't much the confidence interval that was being too strict as I thought in the past, but simply that the precondition was too hard to satistify. Indeed, quickcheck does generate empty lists quite often, (more than 10% of the generated values actually) and this caused the `checkCoverage` to give up very early despite the coverage being okay. I've switched to using a generator of `NonEmptyList` instead of the precondition and re-run both statistical tests a thousand times: ``` replicateM_ 1000 $ quickCheck (checkCoverageWith lowerConfidence prop_shuffleNotDeterministic) ``` without observing any failure. So I've got quite some confidence that this is now fixed..  Co-authored-by: KtorZ <matthias.benkort@gmail.com>

KtorZ · 2019-05-21T10:56:35Z

bors r+

283: Sqlite: add checkpoints and transactions to DBLayer r=KtorZ a=rvl Relates to issue #154. # Overview - Implemented saving and loading of transaction history to SQLite - Implemented saving and loading of wallet checkpoints to SQLite, including the state for sequential scheme address discovery. # Comments - The SqliteSpec testing is a bit light. However, there should be enough implemented for all the DBSpec tests to work. Also I plan to finish the QSM tests tomorrow which should provide even more coverage. - Cascading deletes are not working with persistent-sqlite, which is annoying. - DB indexes are missing on some fields. (Needs some custom SQL, can be fixed later) 289: show feature availability in API specification r=KtorZ a=KtorZ # Issue Number  N/A # Overview  - [ ] I have removed the"priority" from the specification and added a "status" indicating the availability of a particular feature in the API. # Comments  As requested by Chris. Makes it easier for externals to know what's available or not. A preview: ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5680256/58074137-bdc26f00-7ba4-11e9-95b5-33ff723e0f2a.png) ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5680256/58074150-c6b34080-7ba4-11e9-83a5-943877e14fd7.png) ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5680256/58074161-cfa41200-7ba4-11e9-8d83-0948b129e856.png) ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5680256/58074177-dd599780-7ba4-11e9-867e-5047012b1f93.png) ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5680256/58074188-e5193c00-7ba4-11e9-845c-cacfd34a9fc9.png)  292: Fix Change Calculation (#286) r=KtorZ a=KtorZ # Issue Number  #286 # Overview  - [x] I have extended our test to capture the issue highlighted in the bug - [x] I have looked at the test failing - [x] I have fixed the calculation of the change which was... weirdly way off the specification.. # Comments   Co-authored-by: Rodney Lorrimar <rodney.lorrimar@iohk.io> Co-authored-by: Pawel Jakubas <pawel.jakubas@iohk.io> Co-authored-by: KtorZ <matthias.benkort@gmail.com>

KtorZ · 2019-05-21T11:56:50Z

bors r+

283: Sqlite: add checkpoints and transactions to DBLayer r=KtorZ a=rvl Relates to issue #154. # Overview - Implemented saving and loading of transaction history to SQLite - Implemented saving and loading of wallet checkpoints to SQLite, including the state for sequential scheme address discovery. # Comments - The SqliteSpec testing is a bit light. However, there should be enough implemented for all the DBSpec tests to work. Also I plan to finish the QSM tests tomorrow which should provide even more coverage. - Cascading deletes are not working with persistent-sqlite, which is annoying. - DB indexes are missing on some fields. (Needs some custom SQL, can be fixed later) 289: show feature availability in API specification r=KtorZ a=KtorZ # Issue Number  N/A # Overview  - [ ] I have removed the"priority" from the specification and added a "status" indicating the availability of a particular feature in the API. # Comments  As requested by Chris. Makes it easier for externals to know what's available or not. A preview: ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5680256/58074137-bdc26f00-7ba4-11e9-95b5-33ff723e0f2a.png) ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5680256/58074150-c6b34080-7ba4-11e9-83a5-943877e14fd7.png) ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5680256/58074161-cfa41200-7ba4-11e9-8d83-0948b129e856.png) ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5680256/58074177-dd599780-7ba4-11e9-867e-5047012b1f93.png) ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5680256/58074188-e5193c00-7ba4-11e9-845c-cacfd34a9fc9.png)  292: Fix Change Calculation (#286) r=KtorZ a=KtorZ # Issue Number  #286 # Overview  - [x] I have extended our test to capture the issue highlighted in the bug - [x] I have looked at the test failing - [x] I have fixed the calculation of the change which was... weirdly way off the specification.. # Comments   296: Improve bech32 coveralls r=KtorZ a=piotr-iohk # Issue Number  # Overview  - [ ] I have replaced `isLeft` with `Left ...` here and there to improve coveralls score a bit # Comments   Co-authored-by: Rodney Lorrimar <rodney.lorrimar@iohk.io> Co-authored-by: Pawel Jakubas <pawel.jakubas@iohk.io> Co-authored-by: KtorZ <matthias.benkort@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Piotr Stachyra <piotr.stachyra@iohk.io>

piotr-iohk

That's really nice thing to have! 👍

Fixes stack stack/nix build errors resulting from Haskell.nix update.

KtorZ requested a review from piotr-iohk May 21, 2019 06:20

KtorZ self-assigned this May 21, 2019

show feature availability in API specification

accd9b3

KtorZ force-pushed the KtorZ/feature-availability branch from 114d587 to accd9b3 Compare May 21, 2019 06:46

jonathanknowles reviewed May 21, 2019

View reviewed changes

iohk-bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request May 21, 2019

Try #289:

86d0a0e

jonathanknowles reviewed May 21, 2019

View reviewed changes

jonathanknowles approved these changes May 21, 2019

View reviewed changes

piotr-iohk approved these changes May 21, 2019

View reviewed changes

KtorZ merged commit b346d17 into master May 21, 2019

iohk-bors bot deleted the KtorZ/feature-availability branch May 21, 2019 13:17

rvl added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 4, 2019

Update Haskell.nix to PR #289 branch

1679e94

Fixes stack stack/nix build errors resulting from Haskell.nix update.

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

show feature availability in API specification #289

show feature availability in API specification #289

KtorZ commented May 21, 2019 •

edited

Loading

jonathanknowles May 21, 2019 •

edited

Loading

KtorZ May 21, 2019

jonathanknowles May 21, 2019

KtorZ May 21, 2019

jonathanknowles May 21, 2019

jonathanknowles May 21, 2019 •

edited

Loading

KtorZ May 21, 2019 •

edited

Loading

KtorZ May 21, 2019

jonathanknowles May 21, 2019

KtorZ commented May 21, 2019

iohk-bors bot commented May 21, 2019

jonathanknowles May 21, 2019

KtorZ May 21, 2019

jonathanknowles May 21, 2019

jonathanknowles May 21, 2019

jonathanknowles May 21, 2019

KtorZ commented May 21, 2019

KtorZ commented May 21, 2019

KtorZ commented May 21, 2019

piotr-iohk left a comment


		Return a list of known wallets, ordered from oldest to newest.

		> (1) Wallets are currently returned without any particular ordering.

show feature availability in API specification #289

show feature availability in API specification #289

Conversation

KtorZ commented May 21, 2019 • edited Loading

Issue Number

Overview

Comments

jonathanknowles May 21, 2019 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jonathanknowles May 21, 2019 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

KtorZ May 21, 2019 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

KtorZ commented May 21, 2019

iohk-bors bot commented May 21, 2019

try

Build succeeded

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

KtorZ commented May 21, 2019

KtorZ commented May 21, 2019

KtorZ commented May 21, 2019

piotr-iohk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

KtorZ commented May 21, 2019 •

edited

Loading

jonathanknowles May 21, 2019 •

edited

Loading

jonathanknowles May 21, 2019 •

edited

Loading

KtorZ May 21, 2019 •

edited

Loading