Talk:Use a REST API: Difference between revisions

From Rosetta Code
Content added Content deleted
(→‎Submitting events: new section)
(→‎Uh...: new section)
Line 12: Line 12:
An example use of any POST API should be close enough to any other POST API for RosettaCode purposes.
An example use of any POST API should be close enough to any other POST API for RosettaCode purposes.
—[[User:dchapes|dchapes]] ([[User talk:dchapes|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/dchapes|contribs]]) 00:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
—[[User:dchapes|dchapes]] ([[User talk:dchapes|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/dchapes|contribs]]) 00:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

== Uh... ==

This seems a bit iffy, in my opinion. The whole "talk to an API" thing seems marginal.

First, if the task itself is so complicated that the definition of what the task is doing has to be hosted elsewhere, that seems bad. Why isn't the API documentation included in the task description?

Second, what is an "event", in the context of this task? Why isn't that documented?

Third, what is the success criteria, for talking to an external API like this? Is it acceptable for an implementation to be an utter failure? If so, what's the point? If not, how does a reader verify that the code is working?

Finally, [apparently, currently] none of the implementations are acceptable. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 01:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:05, 29 December 2014

Output?

I think the task should specify an example set of parameters for the event query and ask for some sample output. E.g. a city and topic and the number of events and partial information for the first n events. —dchapes (talk | contribs) 00:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Submitting events

I think asking for submitting of events will be problematic. Perhaps it would be better for the task author to create a single example/test RosettaCode "event" and then have a bonus task requirement to use POST 2/event_comment to add a comment to it. An example use of any POST API should be close enough to any other POST API for RosettaCode purposes. —dchapes (talk | contribs) 00:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Uh...

This seems a bit iffy, in my opinion. The whole "talk to an API" thing seems marginal.

First, if the task itself is so complicated that the definition of what the task is doing has to be hosted elsewhere, that seems bad. Why isn't the API documentation included in the task description?

Second, what is an "event", in the context of this task? Why isn't that documented?

Third, what is the success criteria, for talking to an external API like this? Is it acceptable for an implementation to be an utter failure? If so, what's the point? If not, how does a reader verify that the code is working?

Finally, [apparently, currently] none of the implementations are acceptable. --Rdm (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)