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

markers api doc: contradictory parameter description #1105

Closed
hmsuchier opened this issue Dec 11, 2022 · 5 comments · Fixed by #1110
Closed

markers api doc: contradictory parameter description #1105

hmsuchier opened this issue Dec 11, 2022 · 5 comments · Fixed by #1110

Comments

@hmsuchier
Copy link

the documentation for markers api, timeline query parameter is documented as required, but the documentation also describe a "normal" behavior (returns an empty array, which seems to be the case in practice) instead of a 400 HTTP error that would be legit in the case of a missing required parameter.

@trwnh
Copy link
Member

trwnh commented Dec 11, 2022

I marked it as "required" because it's required to get anything usable out of that endpoint. I'm not sure a strict interpretation regarding validation errors is the most useful thing in writing API documentation. I'd consider it a form of graceful failure.

@hmsuchier
Copy link
Author

hmsuchier commented Dec 11, 2022

I understand. The fact that the "required" status for this parameter is visually as important as the one for the authorization one whose absence actually provokes a clear error, is somehow misleading. Maybe the point concerns the api itself, or maybe there is no point at all :)

@trwnh
Copy link
Member

trwnh commented Dec 11, 2022

I suppose it doesn't really matter either way, so I can remove the "required" badge on the argument that if you request no markers, you will get no markers?

@hmsuchier
Copy link
Author

Yes, possibly just a visual way (bold font) to stress that behavior? just a suggestion.

@trwnh
Copy link
Member

trwnh commented Dec 13, 2022

added in #1060

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants