-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 84
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
Use the router prefix for apb tool endpoints #616
Conversation
Switch to using the same routing prefix for the apb tool endpoints
h.router.HandleFunc("/apb/spec", createVarHandler(h.apbRemoveSpecs)).Methods("DELETE") | ||
s.HandleFunc("/v2/apb", createVarHandler(h.apbAddSpec)).Methods("POST") | ||
s.HandleFunc("/v2/apb/{spec_id}", createVarHandler(h.apbRemoveSpec)).Methods("DELETE") | ||
s.HandleFunc("/v2/apb", createVarHandler(h.apbRemoveSpecs)).Methods("DELETE") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
are we intentionally droping the /spec
and including this in .../v2/...
now?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was thinking we could do that going forward. Do you think we should keep it as is?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
no real opinion either way. This will need follow up PRs for the APB tool I think if we do make the change. Other than that it LGTM
Changes Unknown when pulling ef6d90d on rthallisey:apb-tool-endpoints into ** on openshift:master**. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ACK
Describe what this PR does and why we need it:
Switch to using the same routing prefix for the apb tool endpoints. The apb tool has all the information needed to use these endpoints.
Which issue this PR fixes (This will close that issue when PR gets merged)
partially: ansibleplaybookbundle/ansible-playbook-bundle#180