show feature availability in API specification #289
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
KtorZ
force-pushed
the
KtorZ/feature-availability
branch
from
114d587 to
accd9b3
Compare
|
|
||
| Return a list of known wallets, ordered from oldest to newest. | ||
|
|
||
| > (1) Wallets are currently returned without any particular ordering. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @KtorZ. A quick question: don't the following statements contradict one another?
Return a list of known wallets, ordered from oldest to newest.
Wallets are currently returned without any particular ordering.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes. Hence the "incomplete" status 😅
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The requirement comes from Daedalus, as the first consumers of this API they requested this and, I believe it makes sense from the API-perspective to have some sort of ordering available when listing resources on a particular endpoint such that clients may expect the same response from the same request and somewhat predict what the answer should be.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for clarifying!
| @@ -798,16 +798,21 @@ paths: | |||
| tags: ["Wallets"] | |||
| summary: List | |||
| description: | | |||
| Priority [Very High] | |||
| <p align="right">status: <strong>incomplete¹</strong></p> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Interesting that it is possible to embed HTML within these fields. Questions:
- Is this HTML specific to one tool?
- Does this embedding of HTML affect interoperability with other tools that visualize swagger specifications?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmmm.
- No.
- No -- shouldn't.
The swagger specification is quite clear about the "description" field and says:
A short description of the application. GFM syntax can be used for rich text representation.
Where GFM here stands for Github Flavored Markdown. Being markdown means that, we are allowed to put basic HTML too since that's what markdown is the end :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It means we should be able to add emojis too
O-M-G.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Understood. Thanks for the clarification!
|
bors try |
tryBuild succeeded |
| @@ -887,7 +897,8 @@ paths: | |||
| operationId: listTransactions | |||
| tags: ["Transactions"] | |||
| summary: List | |||
| description: Priority [High] | |||
| description: | | |||
| <p align="right">status: <strong>not implemented</strong></p> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To me, the phrase "not implemented" might be read as a deliberate decision to not implement something.
Perhaps we could write "not yet implemented" here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmmm... I don't think so 😅 ... If something wasn't going to be implemented, it wouldn't be in the API specification at all in a first place. Here the meaning is quite unambiguous.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fair enough. (My original thinking was prompted by the use of "isn't yet supported." elsewhere.)
jonathanknowles
approved these changes
May 21, 2019
|
|
||
| Return a list of known wallets, ordered from oldest to newest. | ||
|
|
||
| > (1) Wallets are currently returned without any particular ordering. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for clarifying!
| @@ -887,7 +897,8 @@ paths: | |||
| operationId: listTransactions | |||
| tags: ["Transactions"] | |||
| summary: List | |||
| description: Priority [High] | |||
| description: | | |||
| <p align="right">status: <strong>not implemented</strong></p> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fair enough. (My original thinking was prompted by the use of "isn't yet supported." elsewhere.)
|
bors r+ |
iohk-bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 21, 2019
289: show feature availability in API specification r=KtorZ a=KtorZ # Issue Number <!-- Put here a reference to the issue this PR relates to and which requirements it tackles --> N/A # Overview <!-- Detail in a few bullet points the work accomplished in this PR --> - [ ] I have removed the"priority" from the specification and added a "status" indicating the availability of a particular feature in the API. # Comments <!-- Additional comments or screenshots to attach if any --> As requested by Chris. Makes it easier for externals to know what's available or not. A preview:      <!-- Don't forget to: ✓ Self-review your changes to make sure nothing unexpected slipped through ✓ Assign yourself to the PR ✓ Assign one or several reviewer(s) ✓ Once created, link this PR to its corresponding ticket ✓ Acknowledge any changes required to the Wiki --> 295: fix shuffle tests in CoinSelectionSpec once and for all r=KtorZ a=KtorZ # Issue Number <!-- Put here a reference to the issue this PR relates to and which requirements it tackles --> #291 # Overview <!-- Detail in a few bullet points the work accomplished in this PR --> - [ ] I have removed the precondition about the list length in favor of a correct generator # Comments <!-- Additional comments or screenshots to attach if any --> Turns out that the problem wasn't much the confidence interval that was being too strict as I thought in the past, but simply that the precondition was too hard to satistify. Indeed, quickcheck does generate empty lists quite often, (more than 10% of the generated values actually) and this caused the `checkCoverage` to give up very early despite the coverage being okay. I've switched to using a generator of `NonEmptyList` instead of the precondition and re-run both statistical tests a thousand times: ``` replicateM_ 1000 $ quickCheck (checkCoverageWith lowerConfidence prop_shuffleNotDeterministic) ``` without observing any failure. So I've got quite some confidence that this is now fixed.. <!-- Don't forget to: ✓ Self-review your changes to make sure nothing unexpected slipped through ✓ Assign yourself to the PR ✓ Assign one or several reviewer(s) ✓ Once created, link this PR to its corresponding ticket ✓ Acknowledge any changes required to the Wiki --> Co-authored-by: KtorZ <[email protected]>
|
bors r+ |
iohk-bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 21, 2019
283: Sqlite: add checkpoints and transactions to DBLayer r=KtorZ a=rvl Relates to issue #154. # Overview - Implemented saving and loading of transaction history to SQLite - Implemented saving and loading of wallet checkpoints to SQLite, including the state for sequential scheme address discovery. # Comments - The SqliteSpec testing is a bit light. However, there should be enough implemented for all the DBSpec tests to work. Also I plan to finish the QSM tests tomorrow which should provide even more coverage. - Cascading deletes are not working with persistent-sqlite, which is annoying. - DB indexes are missing on some fields. (Needs some custom SQL, can be fixed later) 289: show feature availability in API specification r=KtorZ a=KtorZ # Issue Number <!-- Put here a reference to the issue this PR relates to and which requirements it tackles --> N/A # Overview <!-- Detail in a few bullet points the work accomplished in this PR --> - [ ] I have removed the"priority" from the specification and added a "status" indicating the availability of a particular feature in the API. # Comments <!-- Additional comments or screenshots to attach if any --> As requested by Chris. Makes it easier for externals to know what's available or not. A preview:      <!-- Don't forget to: ✓ Self-review your changes to make sure nothing unexpected slipped through ✓ Assign yourself to the PR ✓ Assign one or several reviewer(s) ✓ Once created, link this PR to its corresponding ticket ✓ Acknowledge any changes required to the Wiki --> 292: Fix Change Calculation (#286) r=KtorZ a=KtorZ # Issue Number <!-- Put here a reference to the issue this PR relates to and which requirements it tackles --> #286 # Overview <!-- Detail in a few bullet points the work accomplished in this PR --> - [x] I have extended our test to capture the issue highlighted in the bug - [x] I have looked at the test failing - [x] I have fixed the calculation of the change which was... weirdly way off the specification.. # Comments <!-- Additional comments or screenshots to attach if any --> <!-- Don't forget to: ✓ Self-review your changes to make sure nothing unexpected slipped through ✓ Assign yourself to the PR ✓ Assign one or several reviewer(s) ✓ Once created, link this PR to its corresponding ticket ✓ Acknowledge any changes required to the Wiki --> Co-authored-by: Rodney Lorrimar <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Pawel Jakubas <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: KtorZ <[email protected]>
|
bors r+ |
iohk-bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 21, 2019
283: Sqlite: add checkpoints and transactions to DBLayer r=KtorZ a=rvl Relates to issue #154. # Overview - Implemented saving and loading of transaction history to SQLite - Implemented saving and loading of wallet checkpoints to SQLite, including the state for sequential scheme address discovery. # Comments - The SqliteSpec testing is a bit light. However, there should be enough implemented for all the DBSpec tests to work. Also I plan to finish the QSM tests tomorrow which should provide even more coverage. - Cascading deletes are not working with persistent-sqlite, which is annoying. - DB indexes are missing on some fields. (Needs some custom SQL, can be fixed later) 289: show feature availability in API specification r=KtorZ a=KtorZ # Issue Number <!-- Put here a reference to the issue this PR relates to and which requirements it tackles --> N/A # Overview <!-- Detail in a few bullet points the work accomplished in this PR --> - [ ] I have removed the"priority" from the specification and added a "status" indicating the availability of a particular feature in the API. # Comments <!-- Additional comments or screenshots to attach if any --> As requested by Chris. Makes it easier for externals to know what's available or not. A preview:      <!-- Don't forget to: ✓ Self-review your changes to make sure nothing unexpected slipped through ✓ Assign yourself to the PR ✓ Assign one or several reviewer(s) ✓ Once created, link this PR to its corresponding ticket ✓ Acknowledge any changes required to the Wiki --> 292: Fix Change Calculation (#286) r=KtorZ a=KtorZ # Issue Number <!-- Put here a reference to the issue this PR relates to and which requirements it tackles --> #286 # Overview <!-- Detail in a few bullet points the work accomplished in this PR --> - [x] I have extended our test to capture the issue highlighted in the bug - [x] I have looked at the test failing - [x] I have fixed the calculation of the change which was... weirdly way off the specification.. # Comments <!-- Additional comments or screenshots to attach if any --> <!-- Don't forget to: ✓ Self-review your changes to make sure nothing unexpected slipped through ✓ Assign yourself to the PR ✓ Assign one or several reviewer(s) ✓ Once created, link this PR to its corresponding ticket ✓ Acknowledge any changes required to the Wiki --> 296: Improve bech32 coveralls r=KtorZ a=piotr-iohk # Issue Number <!-- Put here a reference to the issue this PR relates to and which requirements it tackles --> # Overview <!-- Detail in a few bullet points the work accomplished in this PR --> - [ ] I have replaced `isLeft` with `Left ...` here and there to improve coveralls score a bit # Comments <!-- Additional comments or screenshots to attach if any --> <!-- Don't forget to: ✓ Self-review your changes to make sure nothing unexpected slipped through ✓ Assign yourself to the PR ✓ Assign one or several reviewer(s) ✓ Once created, link this PR to its corresponding ticket ✓ Acknowledge any changes required to the Wiki --> Co-authored-by: Rodney Lorrimar <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Pawel Jakubas <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: KtorZ <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Piotr Stachyra <[email protected]>
piotr-iohk
approved these changes
May 21, 2019
rvl
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 4, 2019
Fixes stack stack/nix build errors resulting from Haskell.nix update.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Issue Number
N/A
Overview
Comments
As requested by Chris. Makes it easier for externals to know what's available or not.
A preview: