[api] allow POST for /source/<project>/<package>?view=info

[adrianschroeter]

also completing api documentation

jsc#OBS-352

[eduardoj]

Why shouldn't we document, or at least keep, the rest of the options? I see you removed these options:

• cpio
• getmultibuild
• issues
• products
• productrepositories

I see they are still being used in the backend. See:

• open-build-service/src/backend/bs_srcserver

  Lines 7894 to 7896 in 54cd549

  	'/source/$project/$package view=getmultibuild' => \&getmultibuildpackages,
  	'/source/$project/$package view=info rev? linkrev? parse:bool? nofilename:bool? repository? arch? withchangesmd5:bool? noexpand:bool? withmetamd5:bool?' => \&getpackagesourceinfo,
  	'/source/$project/$package rev? linkrev? emptylink:bool? deleted:bool? expand:bool? view:? extension:? lastworking:bool? withlinked:bool? meta:bool? product:?' => \&getfilelist,

• open-build-service/src/backend/bs_srcserver

  Line 2992 in 54cd549

  if ($view && $view eq 'cpio') {

• open-build-service/src/backend/bs_srcserver

  Line 3005 in 54cd549

  if ($view && ($view eq 'products' || $view eq 'productrepositories') ) {

[adrianschroeter]

because the cgi parameter set are only valid for this view.

[eduardoj]

Documenting these two endpoints (view being info and view being other values) in different entries is a compromise between the different outputs returned by the same endpoint.

These lines were added to make a reference between each other endpoint in the documentation:

1. the one you propose to remove, and
2. this other one (see this endpoint and scroll down until the view parameter):
   

   open-build-service/src/api/public/apidocs/paths/source_project_name_package_name.yaml

   Line 98 in cbd8fce

   See this [other endpoint](<#/Sources - Packages/get_source__project_name___package_name__view_info>) for details.

This makes it easier for documentation users to navigate between both endpoints.

I can understand repeating the values in enum section could be redundant. I'm fine if those lines are removed.

But please, don't remove the reference in the description field. I helps API users find and relate the documentation they are looking for. By the way, I have never heard from any API user complaining about too much, repetitive, or redundant API documentation.

[eduardoj]

Removing this link to the other endpoint will make harder for users to find the endpoint they need. Why do you think removing this section is needed?

[adrianschroeter]

because it is off-topic, the entire files only describes the view=info. The description and results are not valid for other views.

[eduardoj]

Same reason as given above: having a link to the endpoint with the other values that the view parameter can have doesn't harm. On the contrary, it helps users find or relate what they are looking for.

[eduardoj]

See comments above.