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

MODLD-646: Update the response structure of authorityAssignmentCheck API #104

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

pkjacob
Copy link
Contributor

@pkjacob pkjacob commented Jan 28, 2025

Should be merged along with folio-org/ui-linked-data#84

@@ -267,8 +267,7 @@ paths:
content:
text/plain:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Now it should be application/json, right?
Description is outdated too (line 266)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes. Fixed.

"reason": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["UNSUPPORTED_MARC", "NO_LCCN", "NOT_VALID_FOR_TARGET"],
"description": "Indicates the reason why the assignment is not valid. Only present if 'validAssignment' is false."
Copy link
Contributor

@PBobylev PBobylev Jan 29, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Such description makes me feel that parameter name isn't so descriptive.
What if we name it like invalidationReason or smth?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@pkjacob pkjacob Jan 29, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good point. Copilot suggested the name 'invalidAssignmentReason'. So, I used it :)

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants