feat: update specs #44
Conversation
Co-authored-by: algolia-bot <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Clément Vannicatte <[email protected]>
| @@ -87,7 +90,7 @@ | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
| }, | |||
| "summary": "Send requests to the Algolia Query Suggestions REST API", | |||
| "summary": "Send requests to the Algolia REST API", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Summary and description are now too generic to be useful, the source should be updated before we can accept automated updates
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Those are really escape hatch for API client users I guess they would be better of filtered on the mcp indeed
| }, | ||
| "put": { | ||
| "operationId": "customQuerySuggestionPut", | ||
| "operationId": "customPut", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm guessing the method name was adapted to make it more unique and avoid collision. I guess we need to to keep customPut/customGet... everywhere though since it's used to generate the clients right?
I don't think it's an issue, but one more reason to exclude these methods when generating tools from the specs
| @@ -98,8 +102,7 @@ | |||
| "404": { | |||
| "$ref": "#/components/responses/IndexNotFound" | |||
| } | |||
| }, | |||
| "tags": ["analytics"] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it expected that we lose the tags? We don't leverage them currently afaik, but it could be useful metadata 👀
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah good point, the tags are only there for documentation purposes but those custom methods are not part of the API reference, so not tagged
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| "/1/status": { | ||
| "get": { | ||
| "operationId": "getClustersStatus", | ||
| "operationId": "getStatus", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we also have a getStatus in analytics, which is why the monitoring one was renamed to getClustersStatus. Not sure what the best way to reconcile this would be though 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure what the best way to reconcile this would be though 🤔
Actually maybe we could try namespacing the tools names
getStatus -> monitoring:getStatus / analytics:getStatus
There was a problem hiding this comment.
that would make sense indeed!
| @@ -388,11 +414,17 @@ | |||
| } | |||
| }, | |||
| "patch": { | |||
| "tags": ["ingestion"], | |||
| "tags": [ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is authentications more correct than ingestion here? 👀
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes we are already in the ingestion "context" and authentications is a building block of the platform so with something like #44 (comment) that would be best
This PR is automatically created by https://github.com/algolia/api-clients-automation
It contains the latest generated guides.