FINERACT-2165: Migrate AuditHelper to fineract-client-feign#6100
FINERACT-2165: Migrate AuditHelper to fineract-client-feign#6100elnafateh wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
c5a02d4 to
36a8bad
Compare
|
@adamsaghy kindly rerun tests |
|
@adamsaghy kindly review this PR |
| + "\n" + "Example Requests:\n" + "\n" + "audits\n" + "\n" + "audits?fields=madeOnDate,maker,processingResult\n" + "\n" | ||
| + "audits?makerDateTimeFrom=2013-03-25 08:00:00&makerDateTimeTo=2013-04-04 18:00:00\n" + "\n" + "audits?officeId=1\n" + "\n" | ||
| + "audits?officeId=1&includeJson=true") | ||
| @ApiResponse(responseCode = "200", description = "OK", content = @Content(schema = @Schema(implementation = AuditsApiResourceSwagger.PageGetAuditsResponse.class))) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems incorrect. The problem is this API can return 2 types of data :(
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@adamsaghy Fair point , the schema shouldn't claim one shape when the wire response actually depends on paged. Same ambiguity already exists in GroupsApiResource/CentersApiResource/FixedDepositAccountsApiResource (all document only the wrapper shape too), so it's not a new pattern, but that doesn't make it fully accurate here either. pls what do u think I should do here ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At this point i think we cannot set ApiResponse and use the "String" for now till this decided how to handle.
I would undo this change for now.
However, please open a discussion about this on the Fineract DEV mail list and we can figure out how to handle there.
2 participants
Description
Describe the changes made and why they were made. (Ignore if these details are present on the associated Apache Fineract JIRA ticket.)
Checklist
Please make sure these boxes are checked before submitting your pull request - thanks!
Your assigned reviewer(s) will follow our guidelines for code reviews.