Re: Resultsdb v2.0 - API docs

2016-10-04 Thread Kamil Paral
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Kamil Paral < kpa...@redhat.com > wrote: > > ... > > > What are the use cases? I can think of one - yesterday Adam mentioned he > > would like to save manual test results into resultsdb (using a frontend). > > That would have no ExecDB entry (no UUID). Is that

Re: Resultsdb v2.0 - API docs

2016-10-03 Thread Josef Skladanka
So, what's the decision? I know I can "guesstimate", but I'd like to see a group consensus before I actually start coding. On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 7:31 AM, Josef Skladanka wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Kamil Paral wrote: > >> ... >> What

Re: Resultsdb v2.0 - API docs

2016-09-28 Thread Josef Skladanka
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Kamil Paral wrote: > ... > What are the use cases? I can think of one - yesterday Adam mentioned he > would like to save manual test results into resultsdb (using a frontend). > That would have no ExecDB entry (no UUID). Is that a problem in

Re: Resultsdb v2.0 - API docs

2016-09-15 Thread Tim Flink
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 19:10:56 +0200 Josef Skladanka wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Tim Flink wrote: > > > On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 22:48:38 +0200 > > Josef Skladanka wrote: > > > > > Hey gang, > > > > > > I spent most of

Re: Resultsdb v2.0 - API docs

2016-09-15 Thread Randy Barlow
That sounds great Josef, thanks! ___ qa-devel mailing list qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Resultsdb v2.0 - API docs

2016-09-15 Thread Tim Flink
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 22:48:38 +0200 Josef Skladanka wrote: > Hey gang, > > I spent most of today working on the new API docs for ResultsDB, > making use of the even better Apiary.io tool. > > Before I put even more hours into it, please let me know, whether you > think it's

Re: Resultsdb v2.0 - API docs

2016-09-14 Thread Josef Skladanka
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Randy Barlow wrote: > Will the api/v1.0/ endpoint continue to function as-is for a while, to > give integrators time to adjust to the new API? That would be ideal for > Bodhi, so we can adjust our code to work with v2.0 after it is

Re: Resultsdb v2.0 - API docs

2016-09-13 Thread Randy Barlow
Will the api/v1.0/ endpoint continue to function as-is for a while, to give integrators time to adjust to the new API? That would be ideal for Bodhi, so we can adjust our code to work with v2.0 after it is already in production. If not, we will need to coordinate bodhi and resultsdb releases at

Re: Resultsdb v2.0 - API docs

2016-09-12 Thread Tim Flink
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 22:48:38 +0200 Josef Skladanka wrote: > Hey gang, > > I spent most of today working on the new API docs for ResultsDB, > making use of the even better Apiary.io tool. > > Before I put even more hours into it, please let me know, whether you > think it's

Re: Resultsdb v2.0 - API docs

2016-08-18 Thread Josef Skladanka
So, I have completed the first draft of the ResultsDB 2.0 API. The documentation lives here: http://docs.resultsdb20.apiary.io/# and I'd be glad if you could have a look at it. The overall idea is still not changed - ResultsDB should be a "dumb" results store, that knows next to nothing (if not

Resultsdb v2.0 - API docs

2016-08-15 Thread Josef Skladanka
Hey gang, I spent most of today working on the new API docs for ResultsDB, making use of the even better Apiary.io tool. Before I put even more hours into it, please let me know, whether you think it's fine at all - I'm yet to find a better tool for describing APIs, so I'm definitely biased, but