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

Documentation Mismatch for Testing API Calls with Django #1515

Open
hamza-m-farooqi opened this issue Apr 6, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Documentation Mismatch for Testing API Calls with Django #1515

hamza-m-farooqi opened this issue Apr 6, 2024 · 1 comment
Labels

Comments

@hamza-m-farooqi
Copy link

What is the current behavior?
The documentation for testing API calls with Django on the official website of Graphene-Django shows incorrect usage of a parameter named op_name in the code examples for unit tests and pytest integration. However, upon inspecting the corresponding documentation in the GitHub repository, the correct parameter operation_name is used.

Steps to Reproduce

Visit the Graphene-Django documentation website's section on testing API calls with Django.
Observe the use of op_name in the example code blocks.
Compare with the content in the testing.rst file in the docs folder of the Graphene-Django GitHub repository, where operation_name is correctly used.
Expected Behavior
The online documentation should reflect the same parameter name, operation_name, as found in the GitHub repository documentation, ensuring consistency and correctness for developers relying on these docs for implementing tests.

Motivation / Use Case for Changing the Behavior
Ensuring the documentation is accurate and consistent across all platforms is crucial for developer experience and adoption. Incorrect documentation can lead to confusion and errors in implementation, especially for new users of Graphene-Django.

@vaishnavi-2901
Copy link

Hey, Would want to work on this issue, please asssign it to me.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants