Configurable field for API Identification

[nandoan]

Using the API title (extracted from the Openapi specification) is not the best option in some scenarios. When a developer makes a correction to the title this plugin creates a new API in Drupal portal because it is unable to find the existent one.

It would be nice to have an optional parameter to define witch field must be used as the API ID. With this change, after creating a custom field in Drupal and populating it using the apicatalog-config.json:

{
   ...
   "fields":{
      ...
      "field_api_id": "internal-api-id",
   }
}

And the apigee-smartdocs-maven-plugin could be changed to use this field to locate the existent API instead of the title.

pom.xml

...
<profile>
	<id>dev</id>
	<properties>
		...
		<portal.api.id.field>field_api_id</portal.api.id.field>
	</properties>
</profile>
...

Ideally, the default behavior (when the new parameter isn't supplied) should be the current one: the title is used as the identifier.

[ssvaidyanathan]

will look into it. For now, you can get this to work by running delete and create options so that it doesn't create a new spec altogether

[nandoan]

Thant you for the fast answer. I've submitted a pull request with a implementation proposal.

[ssvaidyanathan]

will take a look

[nandoan]

Hi @ssvaidyanathan.
Do you have any update about this issue?
Thank you.

[ssvaidyanathan]

@giteshk - what do you think of this PR? Need your help reviewing this

[giteshk]

I like the idea.
I will try to setup a portal and see if the filtering is working as expected.
@nandoan you may need to rebase your commit with the latest changes.

[giteshk]

Can you also update the https://github.com/apigee/apigee-smartdocs-maven-plugin/blob/master/samples/Drupal8/DevPortal/pom.xml file with the proposed field change and set the default to title

[nandoan]

@giteshk
I've updated the branch with the latest changes and added the default field setting

[giteshk]

I have verified the jsonapi endpoint and it works as expected.
@ssvaidyanathan Can we review the PR ?

[ssvaidyanathan]

@nandoan - Thanks for the contribution

I have reviewed the code and provided some feedback. Please take a look