3,543
edits
Open Food Facts API Version 2: Difference between revisions
→APIs
No edit summary |
(→APIs) |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
- https://github.com/openfoodfacts/openfoodfacts-server/issues/4389 | - https://github.com/openfoodfacts/openfoodfacts-server/issues/4389 | ||
- https://github.com/openfoodfacts/openfoodfacts-server/pull/4436 | - https://github.com/openfoodfacts/openfoodfacts-server/pull/4436 | ||
= | = Product read API = | ||
== | == call == | ||
== | == result json == | ||
=== field names === | |||
For the naming of the fields of the results json the following principles are used: | For the naming of the fields of the results json the following principles are used: | ||
* Typing - the to expected type of the values is encoded in the field names, by a string at the end: | * Typing - the to expected type of the values is encoded in the field names, by a string at the end: | ||
| Line 39: | Line 37: | ||
** none - the default will b a String | ** none - the default will b a String | ||
=== platform specific naming issues === | |||
* Swift: it should be as easy as possible to decode a json with the standard Swift-libraries. | * Swift: it should be as easy as possible to decode a json with the standard Swift-libraries. | ||
** no "-", which are not allowed in Swift variable names; | ** no "-", which are not allowed in Swift variable names; | ||
=== comments === | |||
* The json seems to have two user groups: OFF itself and end users (apps). Can the json be split in two section that correspond to these groups as well? Not sure whether this is a good approach. | * The json seems to have two user groups: OFF itself and end users (apps). Can the json be split in two section that correspond to these groups as well? Not sure whether this is a good approach. | ||
* The json can be more structured, so that it is more readible for a viewer, but also from an parsing interpreting point of view. I.e. everything that corresponds to packaging goes together. | * The json can be more structured, so that it is more readible for a viewer, but also from an parsing interpreting point of view. I.e. everything that corresponds to packaging goes together. | ||
| Line 48: | Line 46: | ||
* version 1 of the api used a language code suffix (i.e. ''_en''), to indicate the language used for the strings. Which language codes should be looked at, depended on the content of the json itself. This implied that the field names needed to be constructed, adding extra complexity to the json decoder. Another solution is to use a dictionary to encode these strings like { "languageCode" : "en", "string": "stringValue }. | * version 1 of the api used a language code suffix (i.e. ''_en''), to indicate the language used for the strings. Which language codes should be looked at, depended on the content of the json itself. This implied that the field names needed to be constructed, adding extra complexity to the json decoder. Another solution is to use a dictionary to encode these strings like { "languageCode" : "en", "string": "stringValue }. | ||
= Product write API = | |||
= Images read API = | |||
= Images write API = | |||
= Robotoff read API = | |||
There is now a minimal documentation (link). The documentation needs some more explanation. | There is now a minimal documentation (link). The documentation needs some more explanation. | ||
== call == | |||
== result json == | |||
The result json contains fields that seem more useful to the internal workings of Robotoff than the enduser. Can these be split/structured in the json as well? | The result json contains fields that seem more useful to the internal workings of Robotoff than the enduser. Can these be split/structured in the json as well? | ||
= Robotoff write API = | |||
This api allows to write reponses to insight questions provided by the Robotoff read API. | This api allows to write reponses to insight questions provided by the Robotoff read API. | ||
= Search API = | |||
* See [[Open Food Facts Search API Version 2]] | * See [[Open Food Facts Search API Version 2]] | ||