Overwriting /api about jus

[elingerojo]

@zeke

I would also be open to allowing a command-line option to specify the API path.

I already have a local branch ready to PR but we are stuck with CI-Travis and Appveyor complaining for the node-oniguruma problem.

As soon as we can PR again, will submit the branch with the CLI api path option

[jdormit]

That does seem a little silly, doesn't it?

The trivial solution to this is to serve the /api endpoint somewhere else, at say /jus-api instead. This would be easy and have minimal impact, since the jus core library doesn't use that endpoint outside of tests.

However, I don't know if any jus users have scripts that reference the existing api endpoint. I wouldn't want to introduce a breaking change for them. The other possibility is to make the api route configurable, through a command-line option probably. This has the advantage that it doesn't break anything, but it is less convenient for those who need the /api endpoint for something else.

@zeke , @wmhilton , any preference or insight here?

[t4t5]

I definitely don't think it's silly. :)

Of course it's easy to bypass the limitation if you're willing to settle for a less clean URL. I think however that the /api endpoint is one that many users might want for themselves, since it's very common for library docs to use it (examples: https://webpack.js.org/api, https://emberjs.com/api, https://pugjs.org/api/getting-started.html)

It's obviously not a deal breaker, but still a bit annoying. I agree that it would be nice to make the current api route configurable with some flag. Alternatively choose something less generic, if you want to emphasise the "convention over configuration" philosophy.

Just my ¢2!

[t4t5]

A third option could be that, when hitting the /API endpoint, Jus first checks whether the user has defined that route themselves in the file structure. If they have, then load that page. If not, just show the default JSON data as it does now.

Unless the /api endpoint is used internally by the library for some reason I think that could be a good solution too.

[elingerojo]

@jdormit

...is to make the api route configurable

cli.js

. . .
process.env.JUS_API_ENDPOINT_NAME = args.api || args.a || 'api'
. . .

routes.js

. . .
  server.redirects = require('./redirects')(server)

  server.get('/' + process.env.JUS_API_ENDPOINT_NAME, (req, res) => {
    res.json(server.context)
  })

  server.get('/' + process.env.JUS_API_ENDPOINT_NAME + '/*', (req, res) => {
    var href = req.params[0].replace(/^files/, '')
    var page = server.context.pages.find(page => page.href === href)
. . .

Usage

$  jus serve  .  --api  jusapi

Rationale

• Not include leading slash on the argument cause minimist does some path conversions (they could be solved by path.resolve(process.cwd()... but is to much for a simple configurable directory name)

Note:

@zeke @jdormit @wmhilton We need to do something about node-oniguruma breaking problem. I was unable to PR this simple api change (as neither #70 ) cause of failing test due to node-oniguruma dependency. Remeber master jus is not working for new installations with Node below 6.4 !

[jdormit]

@elingerojo Oh man, I hadn't tried running jus with Node v4. Is there a reason you are using such an old version? Do you think it's important that we support such an old version?

[elingerojo]

@jdormit
Not really but...

...we are unable to do PR without CI-Travis and Appveyor complaints since the 20th of April because node-oniguruma

• we should update dependencies accordingly...
• ... change pagkage.json engines
• ...and more important, change .travis.yml here and appveyor.yml here

I already submitted a PR to atom/node-oniguruma but they have not even commented about it.

As a side note, this "unable to PR" is dragging me on updating you guys about the #70 alpha-like-jus-app branch and the #61

[zeke]

Hey people sorry for the silence. I've been offline on parental leave for the last month. 🌴

I work with the atom team at GitHub, so I can take a look at that oniguruma PR and see if we can get a new version of it out. If it ends up being difficult, I would be open to releasing a new major version of jus that intentionally drops node 4 support.

I would also be open to allowing a command-line option to specify the API path. Or, as @t4t5 suggested, checking whether the user has defined the api route.

@t4t5 would you be interesting in submitting a PR to support that behavior?

[elingerojo]

Just created an api-configurable-endpoint branch at my jus fork.

• Added an optional CLI argument to specify the API endopoint instead of the default '/api'
• Dumped Node 4 support in favor of Node 6 (just to get travis working 'cause node-oniguruma breaking problem)

Issues before doing a PR to jus/jus

1. Should I include user facing instructions for the optional argument? I do not want to brake the "jus no configuration magic" but maybe an "Advanced Users" section could do the trick.

2. Dumping Node 4 support should be discussed first