Re: Apache Fineract CN API Documentation
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Isaac Kamga <isaac.kamga@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks for your very helpful feedback.
You're very welcome. Thank you for taking it so well.
> Do we have to use a different approach ( possibly the documentation module
> you earlier proposed ) for asynchronous calls (POST, PUT, DELETE ) from
> synchronous ones (GET) ? This can be done later but I wanted to know your
> thoughts on this.
Fortunately we do not. The asynchronous calls will return an
ACCEPTED, and the synchronous calls will return OK. From the point of
view of the documentation, and of calling them, that's the only
difference. The asynchronous calls can also return BAD REQUEST for
any invalid values which are fast to check (where the synchronous ones
will return BAD REQUEST for invalid values regardless of how easy they
are to check.)
The documentation module is still an open question for me. But not
because of asynchronous vs synchronous calls.
> Thanks for shedding more light on how this works. When I saw how "easy" it
> was to do API calls, I asked myself how one could get to intercept
> information such as the status of a response. Building a new test harness
> that works with mockmvc can be a daunting task. I hope I can count on your
> help when I run into frustrations.
I'll do what I can, but I don't know mockmvc. I've never used it,
partly because of this problem.
> So far, I created this document
> help developers generate the asciidoc files themselves from the unit tests.
> Would you prefer that we put this in the repository's README file or leave
> it on confluence ?
Let's start off with it where it is, and see whether it works by
trying it out there.
You're doing good,