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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > hi, jinwei, > > > we need to roll back the current PATCH implementation if you want this > > > style of admin api. > > > > > > > > > jinwei <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Agreed, it's acceptable. We should keep user-friendly. > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > >> Ming Wen, Apache APISIX(incubating) & Apache SkyWalking > > > > >> Twitter: _WenMing > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Zhiyuan Ju <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> 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 < > [email protected] > > > > > > > >> 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 <[email protected]> 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 > > >
