@junxu I think this way is enough. Here is more detail, please confirm I am right:
> update `methods` fully: > curl -XPATCH http://172.17.0.1:9080/apisix/admin/upstreams/1/methods -d ‘["GET"]’ fully update data by sub-path, eg: `/methods` Here is case A: curl -XPATCH http://172.17.0.1:9080/apisix/admin/upstreams/1/nodes -d ‘{"127.0.0.1:8080": 10}’ Is this a full update or a partial update? I prefer it is full updating. > Self register and not affect other nodes should be: > curl -XPATCH http://172.17.0.1:9080/apisix/admin/upstreams/1 -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 -d ‘{nodes: {"172.17.0.6:8080": null}}’ agree with this, for the non-array object, it should be a partial updating. But I want to confirm some detail, please take a look at the case `B`: case `B`: curl -XPATCH http://172.17.0.1:9080/apisix/admin/upstreams/1-d ‘{" methods":["GET"]}’ For the array object, we should update the `methods` in full. If the old `methods` value is '["GET", "POST"]', the new value should be ` ["GET"]`. On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:38 PM junxu chen <chenju...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > -- *MembPhis* My GitHub: https://github.com/membphis Apache APISIX: https://github.com/apache/incubator-apisix
