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

API Migration #2

Open
uraniumanchor opened this issue Sep 26, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

API Migration #2

uraniumanchor opened this issue Sep 26, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@uraniumanchor
Copy link

This repo doesn't look terribly active, but while checking server logs I noticed that it's hitting api/v1/hosts. V1 as a whole and hosts in particular are going away in the near future. If there's anything that you need that isn't being provided by V2 please let me know.

@daenney
Copy link
Owner

daenney commented Sep 27, 2024

Hi @uraniumanchor, thanks for reaching out! When I initially built the bot, and its library, @daenney/gdq, the V2 API seemed to exist but not really be functional. I popped by on the issue tracker at the time: GamesDoneQuick/donation-tracker#357

If v2 is up and running and is what's expected to be used now, I'm happy to make the changes. It would be great if there was some kind of API documentation, or if there's some way to get Django to output routes and expected message body formats to make this easier. I seem to have managed to get Django routes last time, but I don't exactly recall how I did it 😅.

@uraniumanchor
Copy link
Author

I'm finishing up adding the Run model to the API today, and the rest should be following shortly. My current plan is to leave v1 around for a short while in read-only mode since we still have some stuff even on our end that's still using it to display things, but if all goes well v1 will be gone either before or shortly after AGDQ25.

As for snapshots and other documentation, I'm hoping to publish some example snapshots soon, generated from the testing framework. I'm also hoping to provide some OpenAPI specifications but automatically generating them has been not as simple as I'd hoped.

@daenney
Copy link
Owner

daenney commented Sep 27, 2024

Generating the specs is very hit-and-miss, yeah. I hadn't thought of looking at the tests, but that's a good idea. I imagine I can also peak at some of the frontend code since that should be calling the tracker API too?

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants