Is the WADL for Nova and or its extensions available somewhere to look at?
Thanks,
Rupak Ganguly
Ph: 678-648-7434
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Bryan Taylor btay...@rackspace.com wrote:
On 10/27/2011 05:52 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Generating WADL (or anything else) from code is fine,
Hi Rupak -
You can get a copy of the Compute API WADL files at
https://github.com/openstack/compute-api/tree/master/openstack-compute-api-1.1/src
Anne
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Rupak Ganguly rup...@gmail.com wrote:
Is the WADL for Nova and or its extensions available somewhere to look
The core API WADL is here:
https://github.com/openstack/compute-api/blob/master/openstack-compute-api-1.1/src/os-compute-1.1.wadl
Keystone also has a number of WADLs here:
https://github.com/openstack/keystone/tree/master/keystone/content
-jOrGe W.
On Nov 14, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Rupak Ganguly
Hi Anne/Jorge,
Thanks a lot for the links.
Thanks,
Rupak Ganguly
Ph: 678-648-7434
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Jorge Williams
jorge.willi...@rackspace.com wrote:
The core API WADL is here:
On 10/27/2011 05:52 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Generating WADL (or anything else) from code is fine, as long as we have the
processes / tools (e.g., CI) in place to assure that a trivial code change
doesn't make a backwards-incompatible change in what we expose to clients.
You bring up a
Hi folks
I tried to generate WADL from nova code.
I could get all resource URI and method from Routes object.
However, I could not get input parameters from code.
(The api method accesses body argument directly. This is also bad for
input validation QA effort.)
But If we use some annotations, it
On Thu, 2011-10-27 at 10:50 -0700, Nati Ueno wrote:
I tried to generate WADL from nova code.
I could get all resource URI and method from Routes object.
However, I could not get input parameters from code.
(The api method accesses body argument directly. This is also bad for
input validation
@lists.launchpad.net] on behalf of
Nati Ueno [nati.u...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 2:50 PM
To: Ziad Sawalha
Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] describing APIs for OpenStack consumers
Hi folks
I tried to generate WADL from nova code.
I could get all resource URI
Generating WADL (or anything else) from code is fine, as long as we have the
processes / tools (e.g., CI) in place to assure that a trivial code change
doesn't make a backwards-incompatible change in what we expose to clients.
Do we?
(really, we should have these in place regardless of how
All,
Thanks to the generosity of Oxygen in supporting open source projects, you
can edit XML within the Oxygen Author or Editor by downloading a copy of the
software from http://www.oxygenxml.com/. Send an email to support @
oxygenxml dot com requesting the license extension beyond the 30-day
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Caitlin Bestler
caitlin.best...@nexenta.com wrote:
WADL sounds like a wonderful validation tool.
But shouldn’t our primary goal be finding a consistent way to describe the
APIs for *application developers*.
Syntax tools, whether ancient notations like BNF or
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Kevin L. Mitchell
kevin.mitch...@rackspace.com wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 15:30 -0700, Joseph Heck wrote:
It sounds like even though most of us hate WADL, it's what we're
expending effort after to make a consolidated API set. So unless Nati
and Ravi want to
On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 12:14 -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
That's fine for generating a WADL for existing APIs that are already
implemented. Not so good for proposed APIs ;)
Oh, certainly, but there the auto-generation could be used to verify
that the code implements the proposed API :)
--
Kevin L.
To answer this, yes, it's possible. Rails does it already, in some
fashion. They have some convention for generating all routes, which I
think is one of the most important take aways here, and they provide a DSL
for implementing other routes very easily. From there, one could readily
generate the
On Oct 26, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 15:30 -0700, Joseph Heck wrote:
It sounds like even though most of us hate WADL, it's what we're
expending effort after to make a consolidated API set. So unless Nati
and Ravi want to switch to using Swagger (or
So you would do a diff if the generated WADL against the expected WADL. That
would mean we use both. I think that's a reasonable approach.
On Oct 26, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Monsyne Dragon mdra...@rackspace.com wrote:
On Oct 26, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
On Tue, 2011-10-25
I expect this is going to open a nasty can of worms... today we don't have a
consistent way of describing the APIs for the various services. I saw Nati's
bug (https://launchpad.net/bugs/881621), which implies that all the services
should have a WADL somewhere describing the API.
I'm not a huge
Hi all -
Would also love Swagger. Nati looked into it and he thought it would require
a Python client generator, based on reading that Client generators are
currently available for Scala, Java, Javascript, Ruby, PHP, and Actionscript
3. So in the meantime the QA list and Nati suggested WADL as a
Hi Joe, Anne
I'm working on WADL of Openstack Diablo in order to generate both of
Test List and API docs from WADL.
I wrote simple script which generate a simple api list from WADL. It
is very helpful.
Nova and Keystone has WADL, and Ravi@HP is working for glance.
Nova's WADL is inconsistent
Hi everyone,
This is just my opinion, but I've only found WADLs very useful when use tool
based automation. To me they're a huge headache to read. To me, the current dev
guide style of documentation has been far more helpful in developing automation.
Daryl
On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Anne
Some of that dev guide documentation is generated from a WADL :-) The purpose
of a WADL is that it is machine readable so it opens up a lot of possibilities,
for creating docs, testing, validation, etc.
-jOrGe W.
On Oct 25, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Daryl Walleck wrote:
Hi everyone,
This is just my
Hi Folks
Daryl
I know to read and write WADL is awful.. because I'm working on that.
My main point is for clear specs. Current docs are very helpful, but
it is not includes
clear specs (parameter structures and types).
Jorge
Sounds Great
My review request is
Which dev docs and how? I haven't spotted those scripts or systems...
-joe
On Oct 25, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Jorge Williams wrote:
Some of that dev guide documentation is generated from a WADL :-) The
purpose of a WADL is that it is machine readable so it opens up a lot of
possibilities, for
It sounds like even though most of us hate WADL, it's what we're expending
effort after to make a consolidated API set. So unless Nati and Ravi want to
switch to using Swagger (or something else), WADL is the direction we're
heading. I totally agree with Daryl that reading it is a PITA, and am
WADL sounds like a wonderful validation tool.
But shouldn't our primary goal be finding a consistent way to describe the APIs
for *application developers*.
Syntax tools, whether ancient notations like BNF or the latest XML concoction
only tell you the syntax of the operation.
There also has to
Keystone is using it more than Nova, especially to document their extensions.
It's working with our existing docs tool chain.
You can reference a WADL directly from the DocBook source, you can go in and
reference particular resources and methods it will parse stuff out and put it
in the
Totally agree. The goal is to create narrative documents that devs can read
etc. The WADL is just there to fill in the nitty gritty details in a
consistent way.
-jOrGe W.
On Oct 25, 2011, at 5:34 PM, Caitlin Bestler wrote:
WADL sounds like a wonderful validation tool.
But shouldn’t our
That's exactly what I'm poking at (and what Nati has started doing as well). I
was trying to see if there was a consistent way to describe all the API
endpoints that could be used to document the combined set.
The raw description is clearly insufficient, so how best to create a final
product
we are working to use swagger, but i think the s/w is not working
can help?
F
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Anne Gentle a...@openstack.org wrote:
Hi all -
Would also love Swagger. Nati looked into it and he thought it would require
a Python client generator, based on reading that Client
The hard thing about processing a WADL is that WADLs uses links and references.
For example: WADL A may refer to a method defined in WADL B, that's useful
when you're defining extensions. Or WADL A may define two resources that share
GET, PUT, POST operations: You see this with metadata in
Hi Nati - I might be opening a can of worms here, but I thought the API spec
and WADL were complete and we were working on implementing it. It sounds to me
like you are doing the reverse and matching the WADL to the current state of
the code. There's value in that, but i know it will cause
The WADL should be complete for Nova. There are a couple of error fixes that
I've completed but haven't pushed up yet. I'll try to get to those tomorrow
and I'll look over Nachi's contributions as well.
What's not done in Nova is documenting all of the extensions. I'm working on
that and
Hi Ziad,Joe, jOrGe W.
Ziad
I'm agree with you. Blueprint must contain clear specs!!
Current api document is not covering all accepted blueprints.
As Joe mentioned, current WADL is not perfect. It is the reason of i'm
reverse checking code for now.
Joe
Ah, it it is just a patch, I need a paper
33 matches
Mail list logo
