feat: add documentation to some endpoints #890
Conversation
Francisco2002
force-pushed
the
feat/tree-endpoints-docs
branch
from
addc82a to
65dc497
Compare
Francisco2002
force-pushed
the
feat/tree-endpoints-docs
branch
from
65dc497 to
af59121
Compare
Francisco2002
force-pushed
the
feat/tree-endpoints-docs
branch
from
af59121 to
179121a
Compare
| error_message="Trees not found", status_code=HTTPStatus.OK | ||
| return create_api_error_response(error_message="Trees not found", status_code=HTTPStatus.OK) | ||
|
|
||
| checkouts = [self._sanitize_tree(checkout) for checkout in checkouts] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As discussed in the meeting me and Francisco had, we could remove this _sanatize_tree using Pydantic alias but that would mean that instead of checkouts being a list of tuples, we would need to change this to a list of objects, like checkouts = [{"checkout": checkouts[0]}, {"checkout": checkouts[1]}, ...] because of the way AliasPath of pydantic works (it gets the element in index n of an object field that has an iterable as value). We judged both of the solutions to be more or less equal so decided not to change at first and would like the opinion of the other devs in this matter
| class TreeDetailsFullResponse( | ||
| TreeDetailsBuildsResponse, | ||
| CommonDetailsBootsResponse, | ||
| CommonDetailsTestsResponse, | ||
| SummaryResponse | ||
| ): | ||
| pass |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe this makes sense in this code (since the full endpoint must be the combination of all the other tree endpoints) but I wanna see what the others think as well
Francisco2002
force-pushed
the
feat/tree-endpoints-docs
branch
from
179121a to
2e231bc
Compare
Francisco2002
force-pushed
the
feat/tree-endpoints-docs
branch
from
2e231bc to
aef36a8
Compare
Francisco2002
force-pushed
the
feat/tree-endpoints-docs
branch
from
aef36a8 to
8c601b0
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems to be working fine. I think we might still have some discussion to do about _sanitize_tree if we'd like that the function returns a dict with the already correct field names or if we'd like to use pydantic to sort this out, but for now I think this is working well
Part of #86
Close #808, #809, #810, #812