Document background job result bodies #430
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
justinlittman
approved these changes
Sep 19, 2019
jcoyne
reviewed
Sep 19, 2019
Part of this work includes ensuring the output field of background job results is serialized as JSON (and deserialized as a hash with indifferent access because we are used to dealing with hashes with indifferent access in the Rails context).
mjgiarlo
force-pushed
the
document_background_job_result_body
branch
from
1916d3d
to
69f8915
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I started down this road when discovering in dor-services-client that dor-services-app was not reliably returning JSON as output.
Part of this work includes ensuring the output field of background job results is serialized as JSON (and deserialized as a hash with indifferent access because we are used to dealing with hashes with indifferent access in the Rails context).
Why was this change made?
To add missing detail to the API specification.
Was the API documentation (openapi.json) updated?
Yes