Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 5, 2019. It is now read-only.

Ensure api.archivers.co is a useful root endpoint #12

Open
patcon opened this issue Dec 1, 2017 · 3 comments
Open

Ensure api.archivers.co is a useful root endpoint #12

patcon opened this issue Dec 1, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

@patcon
Copy link
Member

patcon commented Dec 1, 2017

Currently api.archivers.co points to a page with only the response:

{ "status" :  "not found" }

It would be great if this went somewhere more useful. Potential options are:

  1. redirect to /docs UI
  2. provide a summary of all the top-level endpoints like other api sometimes do

My personal feeling is that (1) is more helpful, but curious to hear others' feeling.

Note: I'd like to convert this into a first-timers-only issue once we have a clear path forward.

cc: @b5

@b5
Copy link
Member

b5 commented Dec 1, 2017

yea yea yea! I'd prefer the root endpoint to return valid json if at all possible to maintain consistency, so what about a JSON message that indicates the API version & docs link?

{
  "message" : {
    "apiVersion" : "0.1.0",
    "status" : 200,
    "docs" : "https://api.archivers.co/docs"
  }
}

This frees us up to move the docs endpoint to somewhere smarter later on (eg: inside a bigger source of help & documentation)

@patcon
Copy link
Member Author

patcon commented Dec 2, 2017

I see we're using data, meta, pagination. Are we conforming in whole or part to jsonapi spec? http://jsonapi.org/format/#document-top-level

If so, should the impementer look to that spec instead of message? (I feel it can be left as an exercise to the implementer to sort out how the solution might conform :) )

@dcwalk dcwalk added the ready label Mar 14, 2018
@AnkitMArtin
Copy link

@patcon Hello is this issue is open. I am really want to contribute to this issue but it is hard for me to understand what is the real problem? I see the above problem is persistent

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants