Sorry for the mistake. Self register and not affect other nodes should be:
curl -XPATCH http://172.17.0.1:9080/apisix/admin/upstreams/1 <http://172.17.0.1:9080/apisix/admin/upstreams/1/nodes> -d ‘{nodes: {" 172.17.0.6:8080": 10}}’ Self unregister and not affect other nodes should be: curl -XPATCH http://172.17.0.1:9080/apisix/admin/upstreams/1 <http://172.17.0.1:9080/apisix/admin/upstreams/1/nodes> -d ‘{nodes: {" 172.17.0.6:8080": null}}’ On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:19 PM junxu chen <chenju...@apache.org> wrote: > hi, Ming > > If we support both styles, it should be: > > curl -XPATCH http://172.17.0.1:9080/apisix/admin/upstreams/1/methods -d > ‘["GET"]’ > > > Self register and not affect other nodes: > > curl -XPATCH http://172.17.0.1:9080/apisix/admin/upstreams/1/nodes -d ‘{" > 172.17.0.6:8080": 10}’ > > > Self unregister and not affect other nodes: > > curl -XPATCH http://172.17.0.1:9080/apisix/admin/upstreams/1/nodes -d ‘{" > 172.17.0.6:8080": null}’ > > > > Multiple implementations do confuse users, but it should be better than > not meeting the needs. . > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 9:51 AM Ming Wen <wenm...@apache.org> wrote: > >> hi,junxu, >> please show the example how to resolve: >> "methods": ["GET", null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null] >> >> IMO, multiple implementations will confuse users. >> >> Thanks, >> Ming Wen, Apache APISIX(incubating) & Apache SkyWalking >> Twitter: _WenMing >> >> >> junxu chen <chenju...@apache.org> 于2020年7月14日周二 上午9:28写道： >> >> > I think We could support both styles. >> > Want to update a certain attribute in full, use the old style. >> > Want to partially update, use the current style. >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 9:15 AM Ming Wen <wenm...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > > > 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". >> > > >> > > I suggest we focus on solving these kinds of problems first. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Ming Wen, Apache APISIX(incubating) & Apache SkyWalking >> > > Twitter: _WenMing >> > > >> > > >> > > YuanSheng Wang <membp...@apache.org> 于2020年7月14日周二 上午8:52写道： >> > > >> > > > old style: >> > > > curl -XPATCH http://127.0.0.1:9080/apisix/admin/upstreams/1/nodes >> -d >> > ‘{" >> > > > 127.0.0.1:8083":3}’ >> > > > >> > > > current style: >> > > > curl -XPATCH http://127.0.0.1:9080/apisix/admin/upstreams/1 -d >> > ‘{nodes: >> > > {" >> > > > 127.0.0.1:8083":3}}’ >> > > > >> > > > They are the same and all idempotent. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 7:27 AM Ming Wen <wenm...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > hi, jinwei, >> > > > > we need to roll back the current PATCH implementation if you want >> > this >> > > > > style of admin api. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > jinwei <gxt...@163.com> 于 2020年7月14日周二 上午12:25写道： >> > > > > >> > > > > > I used to use this API a lot >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > curl -XPATCH >> http://127.0.0.1:9080/apisix/admin/upstreams/1/nodes >> > -d >> > > > ‘{" >> > > > > > 127.0.0.1:8083":3}’ >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I like this API very much, because it is idempotent. We can >> clearly >> > > > know >> > > > > > that the result of nodes is the element I specify and will not >> be >> > > > > affected >> > > > > > by history; >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > This API is also useful for service registration and discovery ！ >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Hope to keep this API >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Thank you very much >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > At 2020-07-13 22:25:43, "YuanSheng Wang" <membp...@apache.org> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > > >{ >> > > > > > > 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 >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > >> > > > *MembPhis* >> > > > My GitHub: https://github.com/membphis >> > > > Apache APISIX: https://github.com/apache/incubator-apisix >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
