+1
I checked:
- Download links are valid.
- Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
- DISCLAIMER is included.
- LICENSE and NOTICE files are good.
- No binary file.
- All files have license headers if necessary.
Thanks,
agile6v
On 2020/07/11 03:47:50, junxu chen wrote:
> Hello, Community,
>
Agreed, it's acceptable. We should keep user-friendly.
Thanks,
Ming Wen, Apache APISIX(incubating) & Apache SkyWalking
Twitter: _WenMing
Zhiyuan Ju 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 “PU
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 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
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 于 2020年7月12日周日 下午10:
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 wrote:
> I think the design of admin api should refer to google API design doc[1],
> and thi
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 于2020年7月12日周日 下午9
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`
+1
I checked:[ ] Download links are valid.
[ ] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
[ ] DISCLAIMER is included.
[ ] LICENSE and NOTICE files are good.
[ ] No binary file.
[ ] All files have license headers if necessary.
[ ] I run it at my fedora 32, it works fine.
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 8:37
