https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=21063
--- Comment #41 from Josef Moravec <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Andrew Isherwood from comment #40) > (In reply to Josef Moravec from comment #36) > > Comment on attachment 84788 [details] [review] [review] > > Bug 21063: (follow-up) Add user ID to column list > > > > Review of attachment 84788 [details] [review] [review]: > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ::: Koha/REST/V1/Illrequests.pm > > @@ +125,4 @@ > > > foreach my $p(@{$patron_arr}) { > > > if ($p->{borrowernumber} == $req->borrowernumber) { > > > $to_push->{patron} = { > > > + borrowernumber => $p->{borrowernumber}, > > > > according to our api name conventions, this should be patron_id > > Thanks for that Josef, this is now done. It has introduced a slight > inconsistency in that we now have the following in the API response: > > Request object: > { > [...] > borrowernumber: 123, > patron: { > patron_id: 123 > } > [...] > } > > The borrowernumber in the request object comes directly from the column name > in the request table. It feels potentially error prone to start introducing > mapping from borrowernumber->patron_id on egress and > patron_id->borrowernumber on ingress. What do you think? > > I don't know, in my mind, it's not an ideal situation to be in having a > naming convention for API routes that differs from the naming convention > everywhere else, but that's how it is, so I guess we just need to work with > it. We should take the rfc to development meeting, vote it and then update the endpoint as it was done with /holds endpoint -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
