Re: [Architecture] [APIM 3.0.0] Publisher REST APIs for mediation policies

Hi Ishara, +1 for the overall approach. For viewing, shall we use a single scope: apim:mediation_policy_view Also for the tag: shall we simplify as "Mediation Policies" Thanks! On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 1:18 PM Ishara Cooray wrote: > Hi, > I have started working on the $Subject and below is

Re: [Architecture] [APIM] [3.0] Publishing to External Stores via Publisher REST APIs

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:03 AM Ishara Cooray wrote: > Hi, > > We can move the same functionality to the "*POST > /import/api?preserveProvider={false} -F file={@api.zip}*" API with > another optional query parameter "*isOverwrite*" to update an existing > API. Instead of giving the APIID to

Re: [Architecture] [APIM-3.0] Store REST API to get all active tenants

Noted On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, 4:12 am Ishara Cooray, wrote: > Hi Dushan, > > *'/tenants':* > > *#* > > * # Retrieve all active tenants* > > * #* > > *get:* > > *security:* > >

Re: [Architecture] [APIM-3.0] Store REST API to get all active tenants

Hi Frank, You can find the full swagger file along with the above changes here [1] [1] - https://github.com/dushansilva/carbon-apimgt/blob/dushan-master/components/apimgt/org.wso2.carbon.apimgt.rest.api.store.v1/src/main/resources/store-api.yaml#L3180 Thanks On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 3:00 PM

Re: [Architecture] [APIM] [3.0] Store REST API for comments

It's good to have. But with the time limits we have, delete is also enough I think. I mean they can delete and write again if need. Thanks, Bhathiya On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:55 AM Dushan Silva wrote: > Hi Bhathiya, > Shouldn't we support edit at least for the person who put the comment? >

Re: [Architecture] [Dev] OAS 3 as default API definition

Hi, I also think since this is a major release it is a good time to move 3.0.0 however if we think from users perspective we should consider the however not supporting 2.0 would effect. If we are planning on supporting a conversion between 2.0 to 3.0 then definitely +1 for this. Thanks On Mon,

Re: [Architecture] [APIM-3.0] Store REST API to get all active tenants

Hi Dushan, I can't find the complete Swagger file. Would you please provide a link? Thanks! Best regards, Frank Am Mo., 12. Aug. 2019 um 16:22 Uhr schrieb Dushan Silva : > Hi all, > As per above suggestions i have updated the swagger. I have added state as > a query param. @Malintha

Re: [Architecture] [APIM-3.0] Publisher rest API to check a role name existence

Hi all, Thanks for the suggestions. As per the suggestions, we have decided to go with HEAD request option. As mentioned earlier in this thread, following are the scenarios where role validation is required: 1. API Design phase - - Publisher access control - check whether the role exists

Re: [Architecture] [APIM-3.0] Publisher rest API to check a role name existence

+Vithursa Mahendrarajah On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 5:26 PM Sanjeewa Malalgoda wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:08 PM Malintha Amarasinghe > wrote: > >> When we return a 404, it implies that the URL (or the resource) does not >> exist. Here the URL/resource is */validate-role *(a controller

Re: [Architecture] [APIM 3.0.0] Publisher REST APIs for mediation policies

For viewing, shall we use a single scope: apim:mediation_policy_view But, it make sense to have the apim:api_view scope to view mediation policies of an api IMO If not, a user with apim:api_view scope can see the api but unable to see the mediation policies due to missing

Re: [Architecture] [APIM] [3.0] Store REST API for comments

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:13 AM Kavishka Fernando wrote: > Hi all, > > Thank you for the feedback. I will make the necessary changes. > > Should we allow users to comment on APIs which belong to different >> tenants? If not we can remove '#/parameters/requestedTenant' from POST >> operation.

Re: [Architecture] [APIM] [3.0] Store REST API for comments

Hi Bhathiya, Shouldn't we support edit at least for the person who put the comment? Since it's more of a social feature edit would be useful for a user. Thanks On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:47 AM Bhathiya Jayasekara wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:13 AM Kavishka Fernando > wrote: > >> Hi

Re: [Architecture] [APIM] [3.0] Store REST API for comments

Yes its good have. If it's a race against time and we are dropping the edit due to that, i guess it's ok for now. However it will not be very user friendly. So better make note of it for next time then :) Thanks On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:09 PM Bhathiya Jayasekara wrote: > It's good to have.

Re: [Architecture] [APIM-3.0] Publisher rest API to check a role name existence

@Vithursa Mahendrarajah Once you implement, let's add several test cases with special characters, secondary user store roles and etc. On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 4:16 PM Vithursa Mahendrarajah wrote: > Hi all, > > Thanks for the suggestions. As per the suggestions, we have decided to go > with

Re: [Architecture] Maintaining IS-Archetypes

Hi Shankar, On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:56 PM Selvaratnam Uthaiyashankar wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 2:23 PM Tharindu Bandara > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Find the best approach to maintain the archetypes (in a single repo or >>> inside the feature repo). >> >> > I didn't understand what

Re: [Architecture] [APIM-3.0] Publisher rest API to check a role name existence

Ack, will do that. On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:16 AM Harsha Kumara wrote: > @Vithursa Mahendrarajah Once you implement, let's add > several test cases with special characters, secondary user store roles and > etc. > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 4:16 PM Vithursa Mahendrarajah > wrote: > >> Hi all,