You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We've arrived in the tuning phase of the documentation generator that is based on rmf-codegen. In our Smoke test API definitions we realized that we have three path parameters that are all identical in 100% of the API endpoints (region, cloud provider, project key).
Since rmf-codegen is so perfect in flattening the effective API definition of an endpoint, the API documentation lists these three parameters over and over and over again.
We'd like to avoid hacking it out again and think the "ramldoc" generation step is the right one to decide whether to fully flatten everything or whether to selectively define some things as documented centrally. A simple default could be to not flatten all base URI parameters that are defined in the root RAML api file. Simply passing a blacklist would do the job, too though.
Any ideas whether this is realistic and could be doable?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We've arrived in the tuning phase of the documentation generator that is based on rmf-codegen. In our Smoke test API definitions we realized that we have three path parameters that are all identical in 100% of the API endpoints (region, cloud provider, project key).
Since rmf-codegen is so perfect in flattening the effective API definition of an endpoint, the API documentation lists these three parameters over and over and over again.
We'd like to avoid hacking it out again and think the "ramldoc" generation step is the right one to decide whether to fully flatten everything or whether to selectively define some things as documented centrally. A simple default could be to not flatten all base URI parameters that are defined in the root RAML api file. Simply passing a blacklist would do the job, too though.
Any ideas whether this is realistic and could be doable?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: