bug: Make kind allowed values explicit on Swagger documentation for Attribute and Relationship kinds

[bilalabbad]

Component

API Server / GraphQL

Infrahub version

1.1.4

Current Behavior

In the Swagger documentation, we see that kind is a string, but in reality, only certain values are allowed.

Expected Behavior

Make kind type more narrow, for example:

kind*: Text | Number | TextArea etc...

Steps to Reproduce

1. go to http://localhost:8000/api/docs
2. see typing for Attribute and relationship schema

Additional Information

No response

[ogenstad]

In order to fix this we'd need to update attribute.kind here:
https://github.com/opsmill/infrahub/blob/infrahub-v1.1.4/backend/infrahub/core/schema/definitions/internal.py#L467-L473

So that it looks more like attribute.branch here:
https://github.com/opsmill/infrahub/blob/infrahub-v1.1.4/backend/infrahub/core/schema/definitions/internal.py#L560-L568

@bilalabbad, aside from the correctness of this could you please briefly explain in what way this would help you?

[bilalabbad]

In the UI, types are generated based on OpenAPI definitions. Since the string type is too broad, we created a constant variable to specify all allowed values. Ideally this list should be defined and enforced by the backend to ensure consistency.

More broadly, types generated from swagger/openapi or graphql schemas act as a compatibility layer between the frontend and backend, to reduce type mismatches and chances of incompatibilities between the two.

[ogenstad]

In the UI, types are generated based on OpenAPI definitions. Since the string type is too broad, we created a constant variable to specify all allowed values. Ideally this list should be defined and enforced by the backend to ensure consistency.

More broadly, types generated from swagger/openapi or graphql schemas act as a compatibility layer between the frontend and backend, to reduce type mismatches and chances of incompatibilities between the two.

Ok, didn't know that you'd started to do that. Is this based on a manual export, something that you generate every so often?

[bilalabbad]

Ok, didn't know that you'd started to do that. Is this based on a manual export, something that you generate every so often?

For now yes, we are manually using a codegen tool for it.
In the future, we'll probably add a CI check for it.