Hey, I just saw this, sorry for being late to the party There's a lot going on in this discussion, so I'll try to be succinct.
First and foremost, I am generating a Java client from the OpenAPI documents. Not the swagger 2 ones provided as documentation, but OAS3 ones created using those as reference. Here's a project I just made public a couple of days ago: https://github.com/camptocamp/geoserver-rest-openapi At camptocamp we're using it in production for over a year in an internal project, but now I moved it as a standalone project to be used by the OSS project geOrchestra. It only implements the minimum I needed for that internal project so far. That is, working with workspaces, datastores, feature types, layers, and styles. And probably not even all of it. Also, it focuses on JSON representation only. On the bright side, it's a standalone library, uses the OpenAPI maven code generator, and runs integration tests against a GeoServer docker container managed by the maven life cycle. CI builds are set up using github workflows: https://github.com/camptocamp/geoserver-rest-openapi/actions --- <rant> That said, writing the OAS3 files and the generated client wrapper code is hard, often having to debug GeoServer itself to figure out what's going on in the server to be able of mimicking it on the api definition. There are several inconsistencies, not only in the outdated/incomplete swagger2 files, but in the server itself, most of which I think are due to using XStream to generate the JSON representations, like a single object instead of an array when an array is expected but the result contains a single element, excessive wrapping of objects, and several other annoyances I didn't care to document properly at the time, but believe me, I thought having a working set of OAS3 specs would be a nice first step towards defining a v2 api with clearly defined api contracts and code-generated server stubs. Achieving that would of course require significant resources so it most probably will die in the wish-list. But by all means, feel free to check whether that project is of use to you and to contribute to it. Given enough community interest, we could even manage to land it as part of geoserver's codebase. This Andrea's comment is of most interest and I think I know how to address it > Third, if you want to have reliable yamls that you can generate clients for, make a plan for it, write a GSIP <https://docs.geoserver.org/stable/en/developer/policies/gsip.html>, > resource it fully, and then implement it. Do it in a way that the system is self sustaining (*every deviation * *> gets a test failure*) and you might not need to be involved long term all that much (but plan for some). Since the OAS3 api object model (catalog info objects, etc) mirrors GeoServer Catalog object model, I've experience using mapstruct to create code-generated object model mappers, and to make the code generation fail if something changes, which is a good way to ensure both stay in sync. That'd be of special interest in case a v2 api would be defined, but I had the intention of creating those mappers nonetheless at least for the sake of keeping the models in sync. As a final note, if I had the resources, I'd very much would like to implement such new api version, but would definitely do so as a microservice in the context of this project https://github.com/camptocamp/geoserver-microservices </rant> Hope that helps, Gabriel On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 at 04:49, Andrea Aime <andrea.a...@geo-solutions.it> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 10:00 PM Marc Le Bihan <mlebiha...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> For that, I think the best thing to do would be to annotate server >> classes and object to allow Swagger/Open Api to produce their exact >> declarations of services in a new yaml file. >> But this new yaml file and Swagger-UI documentation should be in another >> URL, let say /geoserver/rest/v2/... to ensure that existing code that rely >> on version 1 of the API can continue to use /geoserver/rest/... without >> trouble . >> (but this is only the beginning of a solution...) >> > > I don't see the need of a v2, you're not changing the existing REST API > implementation and the resource representations no? Just its description. > Nobody is using the yamls to generate clients right now, anyways. > > Also, in general, versioning will likely not work, the API changes little > by little as new needs pop up, we'd be at "v200" (exaggerating of > course) if we considered every > model change happened so far, and every new resource addition or new > request parameter. > > What we typically try to do, is to preserve backwards compatibility, that > is, a client written for a previous release should keep on working with the > new one (new fields are optional), new parameters in resource requests are > optional. > > As said in my previous mail, the yamls are just documentation at the > moment: I don't know why you explain that a client can be generated > from YAML files if they are correctly set up (we know that very well), as > I told you already, right now it's not a goal, due to the limited staffing > of the project. > The yaml files have been hand written once, and then mostly left there to > rot. > > If you want to join in the effort to make the yaml files maintainable, and > provide resources for both its initial setup and long term maintenance, > then we can make > "yaml as code generation support" a project goal too. Otherwise there is > nothing to discuss, it's not a matter of "right or wrong", > it's a matter of having the man hours to do an initial version of it, and > then look after it in the long term. > Existing developers are busy up to their eyeballs and more, there is no > amount of reasoning that will change that. > > > >> My question is : >> Do you want this file to be integrated in the restconfig project with a >> test if I can create one that is convincing, >> or do you think it's too much, too early, and I better keep these >> corrected file for myself, for my own use only ? >> > > First step, treat it as documentation and simply issue a fix for the yaml. > > Second step, if you can write a test that generates a client, and can use > it in an interaction with a GeoServer, > in a fully automated way, that is also welcomed (you might need to setup a > GitHub action build too, if the > test needs a live GeoServer to work against, otherwise no one will run > those tests). > > Third, if you want to have reliable yamls that you can generate clients > for, make a plan for it, write a GSIP > <https://docs.geoserver.org/stable/en/developer/policies/gsip.html>, > resource it fully, and then implement it. Do it in a way that the system > is self sustaining (every deviation > gets a test failure) and you might not need to be involved long term all > that much (but plan for some). > > > Regards, Andrea Aime > > == GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit > http://goo.gl/it488V for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf > Technical Lead GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via di Montramito 3/A 55054 Massarosa > (LU) phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 339 8844549 > http://www.geo-solutions.it http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it > ------------------------------------------------------- *Con riferimento > alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE 2016/679 - > Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si precisa che ogni > circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo contenuto, gli eventuali > allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è riservata al/i solo/i > destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il messaggio Le è giunto per > errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra operazione è illecita. Le > sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. This email is intended > only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain > information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from > disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 > “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information > herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you > have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by > telephone or e-mail.* > _______________________________________________ > Geoserver-devel mailing list > Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel > -- Gabriel Roldán
_______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
