[PATCH] REST: allow fetching of subject prefixes (categories)

[Daniel Axtens]

Hi all,

> On 14/02/17 21:59, Stephen Finucane wrote:
>>>> I'm not sure about 'categories' - this will also return things like
>>>> the
>>>> version ('v2') and the number of the patch if it's in a series
>>>> ('1/5'),
>>>> correct? Labels might be more valid, if so (though I had planned to
>>>> use
>>>> that name for a more significant feature in v2.1 or so [1]).
>>>
>>> That's valid. I'm happy to leave 'labels' if you have designs on that
>>> for future. How about 'prefixes'? That also works well for leaving in
>>> version and series markers - they're all prefixes.
>>
>> Prefixes sounds good to me. Given that labels will probably function
>> quite similarly [*], it's likely that they'll completely replace this
>> in a future version of Patchwork and it would be best to avoid any
>> confusion over the two.
>
> ACK, prefixes sounds good to me. (The labels concept looks great, can't 
> wait!)


>>>> Do we want to be able to filter on these? I don't know if you can
>>>> do
>>>> this for non-model fields though...
>>>
>>> At the moment, no. The use case is our CI system where we want to be
>>> able to take each patch one by one and figure out which tree to apply
>>> it
>>> to. So we don't need to filter on categories/prefixes.
>>
>> Yeah, I'm not too bothered about this unless it's easy to do.
>>
>> I do have one final question: this information is already available in
>> the 'name' field, right? What extra functionality would this give us
>> other than slight simplification of the client side code (though maybe
>> that's enough of a win by itself)?
>
> Making life easier for clients usually is a win in and of itself :) But 
> additionally it's more semantically meaningful to expose this as a 
> separate field.

Thanks all for your comments, I will do v2 as soon as I get some spare
cycles.

Regards,
Daniel

>
> -- 
> Andrew Donnellan              OzLabs, ADL Canberra
> andrew.donnellan at au1.ibm.com  IBM Australia Limited