background

Historically, both in openapi and in backend Go code, CS & AMS used same types to represent:

1. Fields you must send vs. can omit in POST body when creating resource.
2. Fields you'll get back in POST response. Normally same as:
3. Fields you will always GET vs. optional. This depends on lifecycle stage and also on cluster type in complicated ways... (the best case is omitting whole sub-structs e.g. "aws": {...})
   I think for practical client-development purposes, we mostly
4. Fields you can PATCH — all are optional here (and Go type marks all pointers to detect omission vs. zero value after de-serialization); some are read-only and can't be patched (but Go type includes them so they can be de-serialized so validator can return error if you sent them).
5. "kind": "FooLink" fields are not present at all but only link to other resource with kind, id, and href. In CS at least, these still reuse the api.Foo Go structs, forcing all but these 3 fields to be optional pointers.
   (This was partly motivated by making it easier for Go to sometimes inline related resources in same place vs. linking them. Backends did add a few ?fetchFoo=true params like that, but they are small minority.)

☹️ Problem: The combination of all these, is that practically nothing is required in openapi

And for consumers of the API, nearly all fields being optional conveys zero information.

This is a hard problem to attack!
I don't know if it's realistic to move the needle on actual type level, but it's systematically lacking documentation UI would be glad to get even in the form of comments, for a start 🙏

Proposed first step:

At least in metamodel where we make up the rules, we can add formalized notations for all this.

Defining unrelated models e.g. PostCluster vs. PatchCluster here would be a mistake IMHO. It's valuable to know it's same resource with same fields, they just behave differently under different verbs.

• 1. POST body: in resource definitions, we have in option. But I don't think this says anything about POST vs. PATCH bodies, and it doesn't exist for class files... I think POST needs 3 distinct behaviors:

  • @Add(required) — it's an error if you omit this field.
  • @Add(optional) — default if not specified? probably doesn't need syntax.
  • @Add(never) — it's an error if you send this field (e.g. metrics).

  Do we need support for separate APIs taking different subsets of same type? iirc AMS has 2 endpoints for creating cluster vs. register offline cluster, but that's rare. Let's ignore for now but keep in mind future possibility of more "verbs".

• 2. can ignore, assume POST response == GET response.

• 3. GET: in resource definitions, we have out option. But I think GET needs 3 distinct behaviors.

  • @Get(required) — it's an error if you omit this.
  • @Get(optional) — default if not specified? probably doesn't need syntax.
  • @Get(never) — it's an error if you send it (e.g. metrics).

  Is there value in separating @Get vs @List annotations? Not initially.

• 4. PATCH: nothing is required, so I think needs 2 behaviors:

  • @Patch(optional)
  • @Patch(never) — it's an error if you send it (e.g. metrics).

  I'm not sure what should be default. Frequently you can PATCH a field iff you can POST it, but sometimes it's only day-1 or only day-2 (and tends to get relaxed over time).

• 5. We already have link notation e.g. link Region CloudRegion.

The syntaxes proposed above are "strawman" suggestions. I'm not even sure they should use annotation @ style.

Future possibilities given such metadata

out of scope here, just mentioning to show this could be used in various ways...

• openapi: append this data to description

• openapi: emit custom x-... fields

  • UI typescript: generate separate types from each openapi type, per these custom fields?

• openapi: emit separate types for different scenarios?? [disruptive to existing consumers, including AMS code generation]

• backend: auto-generate validations of required/never fields under various verbs.
  Either as code, or as custom Go struct tags that can be introspected at runtime.

I notice none of the method List { blocks contain an out Kind String parameter.
And indeed the generated openapi documents kind for individual objects corresponding to method Get eg. /api/clusters_mgmt/v1/clusters/{cluster_id} but not for collection lists e.g. /api/clusters_mgmt/v1/clusters

@nimrodshn @jhernand I can send a PR to add those, will that be enough?

I see generated server code has special logic to return correct Kind, including link vs full object.
Will it automatically also return kind for lists?

Summary

Following SDB-2391 the MT-SRE team would like /api/accounts_mgmt/v1/quota_rules to be available in the api model and consequently ocm-sdk-go.

This ticket is just for MT-SRE tracking since that endpoint is still very new.