Review Request 40: basic RESTful API

[Tim Flink]

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/40/#review56
-----------------------------------------------------------


There are GPL headers missing from most of the new source files - please add them


blockerbugs/controllers/api/api.py
<http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/40/#comment80>

    Why did you name the blueprint api_bp when none of the other blueprints use a '_bp' suffix? with the variable API_VERSION that can be set here, wouldn't it be better to call it api_v0 instead or just api until such a time when we have multiple API versions?



blockerbugs/controllers/api/errors.py
<http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/40/#comment78>

    api/errors is missing a GPL header



blockerbugs/controllers/api/iso8601.py
<http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/40/#comment81>

    why are you duplicating this code instead of pulling it in as a dependency? Isn't it the same code as https://pypi.python.org/pypi/iso8601 and https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/python-iso8601



blockerbugs/models/spin.py
<http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/40/#comment82>

    Is there a reason to make this change other than your sense of style? As I recall, most other model constructors do it the pre-change way



testing/test_validators.py
<http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/40/#comment85>

    this bothers me a little - is 12.3 really validated as an int?



testing/test_validators.py
<http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/40/#comment84>

    this should be a separate test case, not just put into one



testing/test_validators.py
<http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/40/#comment86>

    empty comment



testing/test_validators.py
<http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/40/#comment87>

    wouldn't this be better as test_int_list?


A couple of general concerns I have about the code:
 - your tests are, in general, way too compact. There are way too many assertions and checks per test that make it much more difficult to diagnose errors if/when they happen. I understand that adhering blindly to a 'one assertion per test' rule is silly but I think you've taken it too far in the other direction. Additional testing/poking shouldn't be required to figure out what is failing in a test (ie, whether the optional or required elements of the dict validator are failing)

 - I'd like to see more explicit handling of the API version. I like having the version and I think it should stay, I just don't like hardcoding the 'v0' in all the tests without indicating that the test class is only for 'v0' - the file names shouldn't be generic if the api version they work with is specific.

Overall, I think it looks good. All the stuff I'm pointing out is minor stuff

- Tim Flink


On July 22, 2013, 12:04 p.m., Ilgiz Islamgulov wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/40/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 22, 2013, 12:04 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for blockerbugs.
> 
> 
> Bugs: 392
>     https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/392
> 
> 
> Repository: blockerbugs
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Add endpoints:
>  - list bugs
>  - list updates
>  - list spins
>  - create spin
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   testing/test_validators.py PRE-CREATION 
>   testing/test_api.py PRE-CREATION 
>   blockerbugs/models/spin.py 99891448e78c7168d540b479ffd7ef00ce1eec1d 
>   blockerbugs/controllers/api/validators.py PRE-CREATION 
>   blockerbugs/controllers/api/iso8601.py PRE-CREATION 
>   blockerbugs/controllers/api/errors.py PRE-CREATION 
>   blockerbugs/controllers/api/api.py PRE-CREATION 
>   blockerbugs/controllers/api/__init__.py PRE-CREATION 
>   blockerbugs/__init__.py c0f298462670e2ca00ba63fd8e722d2babbe5760 
> 
> Diff: http://reviewboard-tflink.rhcloud.com/r/40/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Wrote test suites.
> I've tested on my develop instance.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ilgiz Islamgulov
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/qa-devel/attachments/20130802/0b1d6e8e/attachment.html>