-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 99
Use app.restApiRoot #10
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd like to deprecate
app.docsin the core application in favor of using swagger directly here.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why is it better to access swagger directly? Things I don't like about that approach: The consumer has to know intimate details about how loopback is composed to be able to find strong-remoting and the swagger extension (
requireLoopbackDependency('strong-remoting/ext/swagger')is a serious code smell). It also has to know that loopback is using strong-remoting and the swagger builder requires a list of remotable methods (as opposed to e.g. list of shared classes). If we later decided to extend swagger descriptors with e.g. model definitions and add another parameter toswagger()function, then we will break compatibility of new strong-remoting/loopback with the old loopback-explorer. It wouldn't happen withapp.docs()approach, because it's abstracting away all these details.If we want to deprecate
app.docsthen I would prefer to either deprecatestrong-remoting/ext/swaggertoo and move the code to this project, or exposestrong-remoting/ext/swaggerin loopback exports. E.g.loopback.remoting.ext.swagger, whereloopback.remotingisrequire('strong-remoting')and the rest is filled by strong-remoting.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should deprecate strong-remoting/ext/swagger and move that code into this project. That sounds like a project on its own, so depending on
app.docsfor this change is reasonable.