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

device REST param does not work #415

Closed
robot-ranger opened this issue Feb 23, 2024 · 9 comments
Closed

device REST param does not work #415

robot-ranger opened this issue Feb 23, 2024 · 9 comments

Comments

@robot-ranger
Copy link
Contributor

our agent has 3 devices:

"mxi_m001"
"mxi_r001"
"pr_super"

using the following urls:

  • /sample?device=mxi_m001
  • /sample?device=mxi_r001

both return a document with all 3 devices; it seems that the device param is not honored

While we are at it; would it be possible to pass multiple devices into the REST request? that would be nice; we have a use case to 'subscribe' to multiple devices and it would be clean if we could open one stream.

something like /sample?device=mxi_m001&device=mxi_r001&path=//Interfaces

@robot-ranger robot-ranger changed the title device REST param does not work device REST param does not work Feb 23, 2024
@wsobel
Copy link
Member

wsobel commented Feb 23, 2024 via email

@robot-ranger
Copy link
Contributor Author

Oh, it is listed in the 2.2 pdf docs:

image

@robot-ranger
Copy link
Contributor Author

robot-ranger commented Feb 23, 2024

I see now device param is intended for the host path before params, the context in the pdf made me think it was a ?key= param.
could it be implemented?
as an aside, it would be nice to also be able to specify multiple devices in a sample stream

@wsobel
Copy link
Member

wsobel commented Feb 23, 2024 via email

@wsobel
Copy link
Member

wsobel commented Feb 23, 2024 via email

@wsobel
Copy link
Member

wsobel commented Feb 23, 2024 via email

@robot-ranger
Copy link
Contributor Author

robot-ranger commented Feb 23, 2024

I can see where the individual documentation could be misleading. I think we need to add classification to documentation of the device parameter.

The juxtaposition of 'device' next to ex 'from' and 'path' in the pdf doc led me to think I could do ?device=

Ill refer to swagger from now on

@robot-ranger
Copy link
Contributor Author

closing; clearly i misinterpreted the docs

@wsobel
Copy link
Member

wsobel commented Feb 24, 2024

closing; clearly i misinterpreted the docs

I will open an issue in the projects site to address this. Misinterpretation is our issue since it is not clear enough.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants