{
desc: xxxx,
id: xxxx,
nodes: ["xx", "yy", "zz"]
}
I have one question, if we want to update the `desc` and `nodes`, how to do
with this case?
The old API style does not support this way.
Should we support this case? Otherwise, we will never support updating part
of the data like this.
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 10:52 AM Ming Wen <wenm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Agreed, it's acceptable. We should keep user-friendly.
>
> Thanks,
> Ming Wen, Apache APISIX(incubating) & Apache SkyWalking
> Twitter: _WenMing
>
>
> Zhiyuan Ju <juzhiy...@apache.org> 于2020年7月13日周一 上午6:42写道：
>
> > I think when facing the issue you mentioned, we just
> >
> > PATCH {methods: [GET, POST]}
> >
> > , and API should just do a “PUT Like” action for the “methods” filed.
> >
> > Data with some fixed length “null” is confusing actually.
> >
> > Ming Wen <wenm...@apache.org>于2020年7月12日 周日下午10:45写道：
> >
> > > Whether to roll back has nothing to do with new or old commit.
> > >
> > > The current implementation is not in compliance with the specifications
> > and
> > > user perception, there is no need to keep.
> > >
> > > APISIX is API gateway, the admin api must follow good design
> > > specifications.
> > >
> > > YuanSheng Wang <membp...@apache.org> 于 2020年7月12日周日 下午10:13写道：
> > >
> > > > It is not a good idea to `roll back` the PATCH implementation for
> admin
> > > > API.
> > > >
> > > > 1. it is an old commit.
> > > > 2. we can support the sub `PATH` if we need to support it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:07 PM Ming Wen <wenm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think the design of admin api should refer to google API design
> > > doc[1],
> > > > > and this makes it easy to reach consensus with users.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://cloud.google.com/apis/design/standard_methods
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Ming Wen, Apache APISIX(incubating) & Apache SkyWalking
> > > > > Twitter: _WenMing
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ming Wen <wenm...@apache.org> 于2020年7月12日周日 下午9:56写道：
> > > > >
> > > > > > hello, all,
> > > > > > A user has reported a issue[1] about PATCH method of admin API.
> > > > > > I looked at the PR[2] that was causing user confusion, and I
> think
> > > the
> > > > > > user is using it in the right way and our implementation is
> > > > > inappropriate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For example, if user want to update the `method` of
> > > > > `/apisix/admin/routes/1`,
> > > > > > user need to PATCH with data: `"methods": ["GET", null, null,
> null,
> > > > null,
> > > > > > null, null, null, null]`. For me, I don't know why I need a lot
> of
> > > > `null`
> > > > > > after "GET".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From the user's perspective, the current implementation is not
> > > > > > appropriate. So I suggest roll back the current PATCH
> > > > implementation[2]
> > > > > > for admin api.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > what do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-apisix/issues/1823
> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-apisix/pull/1609
> > > > > > [3]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-apisix/pull/1609/files#diff-00625723b6e737f3cdb18af67165b70fR996
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Ming Wen, Apache APISIX(incubating) & Apache SkyWalking
> > > > > > Twitter: _WenMing
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > *MembPhis*
> > > > My GitHub: https://github.com/membphis
> > > > Apache APISIX: https://github.com/apache/incubator-apisix
> > > >
> > >
> > --
> > 来自 琚致远
> >
>
--
*MembPhis*
My GitHub: https://github.com/membphis
Apache APISIX: https://github.com/apache/incubator-apisix
