Linguist api docs

[bforbis]

Hey, I just made a Pull Request!

I've been getting into the API docs functionality that has been added for plugin backends and would like to add API specs for the linguist backend.

✔️ Checklist

• A changeset describing the change and affected packages. (more info)
• Added or updated documentation
• Tests for new functionality and regression tests for bug fixes
• Screenshots attached (for UI changes)
• All your commits have a Signed-off-by line in the message. (more info)

[backstage-goalie]

Changed Packages

Package Name	Package Path	Changeset Bump	Current Version
backend	workspaces/linguist/packages/backend	none	v0.0.16
@backstage-community/plugin-linguist-backend	workspaces/linguist/plugins/linguist-backend	minor	v0.9.0

[awanlin]

Hi @bforbis, I've been pretty busy as of late but wanted to share that I have seen this.

I'm currently a bit torn on this one as I often point to this plugin as a good example of patterns. I like that it's very close to the default plugin structure. I also personally take a code first approach to development and this would be a change for me.

I'll keep thinking on this though, I'm not totally on the side of saying no, again just didn't want to keep you in the dark on my thinking.

[bforbis]

@awanlin, thanks and no problem on being busy!

I am just copying the patterns that exist for catalog, search, and events right now. I don't have a lot of opinions on whether its spec first vs code first, just wanted the ability to see the linguist API in my stitched together backstage OpenAPI spec.

The API for linguist is simple enough that switching between either approach won't be too much effort. I think openapi tooling for backstage will continue to evolve, so if some better code-genarated API spec tooling is available in the future this could be ported to it.

[github-actions]

This PR has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity from the author. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. If the PR was closed and you want it re-opened, let us know and we'll re-open the PR so that you can continue the contribution!

[awanlin]

Hoping to review this today or tomorrow 👍

But there are conflicts @bforbis, can you take a look at those, please?

[aramissennyeydd]

Exciting stuff! 😁

[bforbis]

Dropped the optic.yml file as it is not needed and additionally rebased off main to fix package / lock conflicts.

[bforbis]

One more fix for yarn dedupe

[awanlin]

Alright, let's move this forward @bforbis, left one small comment and would also like confirmation on once comment you posted.

[awanlin]

@bforbis, if you can fix the conflicts that crept in I'll follow up with approval and merging 👍

[awanlin]

Let's move forward with this 👍