Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Indefinite Field type for service_code and service_request_id #23

Open
seekayel opened this issue Dec 10, 2015 · 1 comment
Open

Indefinite Field type for service_code and service_request_id #23

seekayel opened this issue Dec 10, 2015 · 1 comment

Comments

@seekayel
Copy link
Contributor

Summary
The spec is internally inconsistent in what JSON type it uses in its service_code and service_request_id examples. These examples don't match the type: string definition for this swagger spec.

Proposed solution: change them all to string types or change them all to integer types and clearly state the type in the spec.

TL;DR
The swagger spec specifies service_request_id and service_code as

service_code:
  type: string
  format: uid
service_request_id:
  type: string
  format: uid

Which would imply the following formats:

JSON

"service_request_id": "1335131"
"service_code": "124"

XML

<service_request_id>1335131</service_request_id>
<service_code>124</service_code>

The XML can be interpreted as either a string or an integer. Note that the spec (http://wiki.open311.org/GeoReport_v2/) defines it in its sample JSON in both ways.

Get Service List: "service_code":001
Get Service Definition: "service_code":"DMV66"

For service_request_id it is only specified in the json integer format "service_request_id":293944 this would imply that the service_request_id field is actually an Integer and not a string.

cc @zdicesare @philipashlock

@kvlahromei
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @seekayel , thanks for submitting this issue and sorry for the delay. I will check it this week

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants