https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38226 --- Comment #1 from Tomás Cohen Arazi (tcohen) <tomascohen@gmail.com> --- Created attachment 173132 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=173132&action=edit Bug 38226: API spec Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@theke.io> -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38226 Tomás Cohen Arazi (tcohen) <tomascohen@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|koha-bugs@lists.koha-commun |tomascohen@gmail.com |ity.org | Blocks| |38224, 34784 Referenced Bugs: https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=34784 [Bug 34784] Add ability to populate empty item call numbers for a record based on the itemcallnumber system preference https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38224 [Bug 38224] Move populate_empty_callnumbers logic into Koha::Biblio for reusability -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38226 Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jonathan.druart@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38226 --- Comment #4 from Nick Clemens (kidclamp) <nick@bywatersolutions.com> --- Created attachment 174243 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=174243&action=edit Bug 38226: Add RPC route for updating item callnumbers for a biblio This patch takes the idea implemented on the original patch, moves it to the /rpc namespace to make it clear this is not a RESTful endpoint. Code gets improved a bit, using some patterns we are using nowadays. The return value gets a bit more information and. A big change is it now uses `Koha::Items->batch_update`. It originally used `Koha::Items->update` with the `no_trigger` option. It felt like `batch_update` is a bit more smart in terms of triggering indexing at the end of the update, and only for the host biblio. It looks like that was the spirit of the original implementation, but missed to actually trigger indexing at the end of the call. To test: 1. Apply this patches 2.Run: $ ktd --shell k$ yarn api:bundle k$ restart_all 3. Run the tests: k$ prove t/db_dependent/api/v1/rpc/biblios.t => SUCCESS: Tests pass! 4. Try the new routes with Postman or your favourite tool (if they don't match) => SUCCESS: The desired behavior is what you get. 5. Sign off :-D Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@theke.io> Signed-off-by: Nick Clemens <nick@bywatersolutions.com> -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38226 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@gmail.com> --- curl -u koha:koha http://localhost:8081/rpc/biblios/1/items/1/populate_empty_callnumbers It gets a 404, what am I missing? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38226 David Cook <dcook@prosentient.com.au> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dcook@prosentient.com.au --- Comment #8 from David Cook <dcook@prosentient.com.au> --- (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #6)

curl -u koha:koha http://localhost:8081/rpc/biblios/1/items/1/populate_empty_callnumbers

It gets a 404, what am I missing?

Wouldn't you still need /api/v1/ in front of /rpc? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38226 David Cook <dcook@prosentient.com.au> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugs.koha-community | |.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi | |?id=30652, | |https://bugs.koha-community | |.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi | |?id=38745 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38226 --- Comment #11 from Tomás Cohen Arazi (tcohen) <tomascohen@gmail.com> --- Hi all. I picked the RPC keyword only because I wanted a namespace that makes it clear that endpoints defined in it are not RESTful. I don't see an issue with having a non-RESTful portion of the API for special uses (I'm actually 100% onboard with that), as not everything falls into the CRUD pattern. As an example of this, I'm sure we shouldn't be using the CRUD endpoints for displaying dropdowns. It makes endpoints permissions requirements a real mess e.g. why do you need to access the full library objects in order to display a list of library code/name? Library information is *almost* trivial and not important, but think of other resources. In another context I proposed we made this batch-like endpoints just be `POST /jobs` (or `POST /jobs/batch_cancel_holds`) and this could be better case here. We just need a pattern to follow. That said, the 'RPC nature' on this two introduced endpoints is the fact there's a verb in the path: 'populate_empty_callnumbers'. This particular endpoint is self-documented so I assume Jonathan refers to the guidelines this time. I agree we should document it, if we decide to go this path. As I said, I'd prefer some sort of `POST /jobs` but it would require the consumer to retrieve the job results, etc. Unless we use a pseudo job that (i.e. nothing is queued, etc). (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #10)

%curl -X POST -u koha:koha http://localhost:8081/api/v1/rpc/biblios/1/items/99/ populate_empty_callnumbers {"error":"Callnumber fields not found","error_code":"missing_configuration"}

There is no item_id=99 for biblio_id=1. Shouldn't we return 404 instead?

That's a bug. Thanks for taking the time to test it :-D -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38226 --- Comment #13 from Tomás Cohen Arazi (tcohen) <tomascohen@gmail.com> --- Created attachment 177314 --> https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=177314&action=edit Bug 38226: Add RPC route for updating item callnumbers for a biblio This patch takes the idea implemented on the original patch, moves it to the /rpc namespace to make it clear this is not a RESTful endpoint. Code gets improved a bit, using some patterns we are using nowadays. The return value gets a bit more information and. A big change is it now uses `Koha::Items->batch_update`. It originally used `Koha::Items->update` with the `no_trigger` option. It felt like `batch_update` is a bit more smart in terms of triggering indexing at the end of the update, and only for the host biblio. It looks like that was the spirit of the original implementation, but missed to actually trigger indexing at the end of the call. To test: 1. Apply this patches 2.Run: $ ktd --shell k$ yarn api:bundle k$ restart_all 3. Run the tests: k$ prove t/db_dependent/api/v1/rpc/biblios.t => SUCCESS: Tests pass! 4. Try the new routes with Postman or your favourite tool (if they don't match) => SUCCESS: The desired behavior is what you get. 5. Sign off :-D Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@theke.io> Signed-off-by: Nick Clemens <nick@bywatersolutions.com> -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38226 --- Comment #15 from David Cook <dcook@prosentient.com.au> --- (In reply to Tomás Cohen Arazi (tcohen) from comment #11)

Hi all. I picked the RPC keyword only because I wanted a namespace that makes it clear that endpoints defined in it are not RESTful.

I don't see an issue with having a non-RESTful portion of the API for special uses (I'm actually 100% onboard with that), as not everything falls into the CRUD pattern. As an example of this, I'm sure we shouldn't be using the CRUD endpoints for displaying dropdowns. It makes endpoints permissions requirements a real mess e.g. why do you need to access the full library objects in order to display a list of library code/name? Library information is *almost* trivial and not important, but think of other resources.

In another context I proposed we made this batch-like endpoints just be `POST /jobs` (or `POST /jobs/batch_cancel_holds`) and this could be better case here. We just need a pattern to follow.

That said, the 'RPC nature' on this two introduced endpoints is the fact there's a verb in the path: 'populate_empty_callnumbers'.

This particular endpoint is self-documented so I assume Jonathan refers to the guidelines this time. I agree we should document it, if we decide to go this path. As I said, I'd prefer some sort of `POST /jobs` but it would require the consumer to retrieve the job results, etc. Unless we use a pseudo job that (i.e. nothing is queued, etc).

I've found the thread on Mattermost quite interesting! Based on this comment of yours, I think that you and I have come to the same conclusion, which is that it boils down to 3 choices: 1. Try to force things into REST semantics (e.g. POST /jobs or POST /jobs/batch_populate_empty_callnumbers or PUT /batch_record_modification with parameters in POSTDATA) 2. Extend/hybridize REST endpoints with actions in the path (e.g. POST /api/v1/biblios/{biblio_id}/items/populate_empty_callnumbers) 3. Create a RPC endpoint (POST /api/v1/rpc/biblios/{biblio_id}/items/populate_empty_callnumbers or POST /api/v1/rpc with parameters in POSTDATA) #NOTE: I think that gRPC uses paths but JSON-RPC does not use paths. Depends on the standard or lack of standard used... Technically, we actually already do the 2nd option quite a bit. Here's a few examples: POST /api/v1/return_claims POST /api/v1/erm/usage_data_providers/{erm_usage_data_provider_id}/process_COUNTER_file POST /api/v1/holds/{hold_id}/suspension PUT /api/v1/import_batches/{import_batch_id}/records/{import_record_id}/matches/chosen I think we're worried about /api/v1/rpc becoming the wild west, but it seems like we're already in a bit of a wild west scenario with the "REST" API. REST is great for CRUD, but Koha - server side - does a lot more than just CRUD. We're not expecting the REST API consumer to do processing. We're expecting Koha to do the processing, which means we need to support performing actions on the server by API somehow. I don't think there's really a "right or wrong" here. At the moment, I think options 1 and 2 are probably the most practical, as they're already established practices in Koha. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.