Document 'app' query parameter in ratings API #22648
Conversation
diox
requested review from
a team and
KevinMind
and removed request for
a team
| @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ user has already posted a rating for the current version of an add-on. | |||
| .. http:get:: /api/v5/ratings/rating/ | |||
|
|
|||
| :query string addon: The :ref:`add-on <addon-detail>` id, slug, or guid to fetch ratings from. When passed, the ratings shown will always be the latest posted by each user on this particular add-on (which means there should only be one rating per user in the results), unless the ``version`` parameter is also passed. | |||
| :query string app: Set the :ref:`add-on application <addon-detail-application>` for that query. This won't filter the results, but can affect the URLs being returned. Defaults to ``firefox``. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think anything added to rst docs should also be added to swagger at this point. Let's at least not get further behind.
|
Could you have a look at the ratings api view and see if the swagger documentation is also up to date as much as possible? |
|
Swagger docs for ratings are missing... everything really. None of the query parameters except for pagination are documented in swagger. |
|
Then wouldn't this be a perfect opportunity to add at least some definition to the schema? I'm not saying you need to aim for equivalence but if we make a habit of always slowly improving the coverage then over time it will get much better without requiring some massive uplift. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think you should at least attempt to add some definition to the swagger definition of the endpoint/method you touched here.
Otherwise our swagger API will always be behind 🤷 I'm not gonna block merging such a small patch but I'm at least going to verbally protest 🙃
|
Filed mozilla/addons#15019 because it's really all our APIs and I had this particular issue as a 0 story point 😅 |
Fixes: mozilla/addons#1910
appparameter is handled a bit transparently in addons-server and so we had forgotten to document it in this specific API, but it does have a (minor) impact if provided.