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

Add support for URI variables to exploreDirectory method #528

Open
JKRhb opened this issue Dec 21, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

Add support for URI variables to exploreDirectory method #528

JKRhb opened this issue Dec 21, 2023 · 2 comments
Labels
API-improvement Suggestions for changing the API discovery Relates to discovery and/or relates to joint work/discussions with the discovery task force for next iteration Planned or postponed topics for the future use case Describes a scenario that may be useful for technical decisions

Comments

@JKRhb
Copy link
Member

JKRhb commented Dec 21, 2023

While dealing with the implementation of the exploreDirectory method, I noticed that the things property in the API specification Thing Model defines three uriVariables which are currently not accessible via our API (namely the query parameters offset, limit, and format).

Should we add these three as optional parameters to the method?

@JKRhb JKRhb added API-improvement Suggestions for changing the API discovery Relates to discovery and/or relates to joint work/discussions with the discovery task force labels Dec 21, 2023
@zolkis
Copy link
Contributor

zolkis commented Dec 21, 2023

Should be part of an options dictionary, each as a named property, as they need to be validated. They can also be part of options as a separate dictionary with 3 properties, just like we use URI variable also in InteractionOptions as a parsed JSON object.

That needs more work, too. In general, we need to improve handling URI variables from scripts/web API.
IMHO we should make the allowed URI variables explicit(ly validated).
Otherwise why do we do a web API, we should be fine with plain RESTful communication, using whatever means from scripts (libraries, fetch, etc).

@relu91
Copy link
Member

relu91 commented Jan 15, 2024

Call 15/01:

  • @JKRhb we'll work on a concrete use case description (blocked by use case task force - we need to define the process - Use case task force will resume work this Wednesday).

@relu91 relu91 added the for next iteration Planned or postponed topics for the future label Jan 22, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
API-improvement Suggestions for changing the API discovery Relates to discovery and/or relates to joint work/discussions with the discovery task force for next iteration Planned or postponed topics for the future use case Describes a scenario that may be useful for technical decisions
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants