You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 8, 2024. It is now read-only.
Right now, if I want to add a nested action to a resource, I need to do this:
## Apples [/apples]### Get all apples [GET]+Response200(application/json)+ Attributes (Apple)
### Pick another apple [GET /apples/pick]+Response200(application/json)+ Attributes (Apple)
But I would like to do the following:
### Pick another apple [GET ./pick]
Which would generate the following actions: GET /apples and GET /apples/pick. I think a lot of people could find these relative URIs quite useful.
I recognize you would probably only want to allow URIs that are children/sub-paths of the resource group b/c otherwise it could get confusing, but I think this format of relative URLs makes a lot more sense for the resource-driven design that API Blueprint seems to be set on.
I don't really want to repeat the entire absolute URL if I am performing a specialized action on a deeply nested subresource.
Also, it seems a little counterintuitive that the spec allows for Action URIs which are not children of Resource URIs (e.g. I could have ## Pick Apples [GET /robot/picker/pick] underneath # Apples [/apples]). I guess there are use-cases for that as well.
I'd love thoughts on this. Also, thanks for making an awesome and flexible tool, my days of Swagger are done!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Right now, if I want to add a nested action to a resource, I need to do this:
But I would like to do the following:
### Pick another apple [GET ./pick]
Which would generate the following actions:
GET /apples
andGET /apples/pick
. I think a lot of people could find these relative URIs quite useful.I recognize you would probably only want to allow URIs that are children/sub-paths of the resource group b/c otherwise it could get confusing, but I think this format of relative URLs makes a lot more sense for the resource-driven design that API Blueprint seems to be set on.
I don't really want to repeat the entire absolute URL if I am performing a specialized action on a deeply nested subresource.
Also, it seems a little counterintuitive that the spec allows for Action URIs which are not children of Resource URIs (e.g. I could have
## Pick Apples [GET /robot/picker/pick]
underneath# Apples [/apples]
). I guess there are use-cases for that as well.I'd love thoughts on this. Also, thanks for making an awesome and flexible tool, my days of Swagger are done!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: