Hi
I then noticed that the enable_downloads/enable_statistics parameters in the
create_repo API also had no effect.
It seems that no parameters are used and the repository's default settings are used. (I think this is probably the expected
behavior.)
I think this one also needs to be removed from the API parameters and
description.
Thanks
--
toras9000
On 2022/10/15 12:31, toras wrote:
Hi
> (If you are working from a repo checkout, it would be more helpful if you
could send a diff.)
You are right. I wasn't used to it.
I will do so on future occasions.
>> + "gist": <gist_object>
> What is gist object? That should perhaps be clarified. Or perhaps it is a
bug that it is returned ...
I wrote it in the sense that the <gist_object> in the result of this 'create_gist' is JSON with the same structure as the result
of 'get_gist'.
It's information about the created gist and I think it's the correct return
value.
To avoid misinterpretation as an empty object, I imitated 'create_user' comment
and wrote it like this.
Specifically, <gist_object> was such JSON data.
"gist": {"gist_id": 1, "type": "public", "access_id": "1", "description": "", "url": "http://localhost:9999/_admin/gists/1";,
"expires": -1.0, "created_on": "2022-10-14T14:20:24.625"}
>> - The 'parent' parameter of 'update_repo_group' does not work.
> A quick look: The update_repo_group API arguments seems to be handled by
>
https://kallithea-scm.org/repos/kallithea/files/7037365a/kallithea/model/repo_group.py#L278
. So perhaps the code in api.py
> should pass it as 'parent_group_id' instead of 'parent_group'?
> (But also, 'owner' doesn't seem to be handled at all. Does owner change
really work for you? But also, I don't think it matters
> much who owns a repo group. Admin rights does the same thing. So repo group
owner should perhaps just be removed from api.py and
> documentation?)
I'm not confident in my reading comprehension, but...
As you say, it looks like it would be necessary to pass it by 'parent_group_id'.
Also, is it necessary to not pass the 'parent_group_id' if it is not moved?
And I think that api.py should also resolve with get_repo_group_or_error() so
that both name and id values are available.
And 'owner' certainly doesn't work either. I hadn't noticed.
Looking at the comments on RepoGroupModel.create(), did the implementer plan to
use owner in the future?
There is also a countermeasure to make it changeable with update, right?
But for consistency in the current situation, it seems reasonable to remove it
from the API parameters and documentation.
> Anyway:
> I also pushed some further cleanup of the documentation in api.py and
api.rst .That's on the *stable* branch. It would be great
> if they could converge, and we could generate api.rst from api.py .
> If you want to improve documentation further, take a look at
https://kallithea-scm.org/repos/kallithea/pull-request/325/_/api
> and propose api.py changes to make a grand unification.
Thank you. But as of now I do not have any further changes.
Thanks
_______________________________________________
kallithea-general mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/kallithea-general
