Skip to content

Conversation

@matmair
Copy link
Contributor

@matmair matmair commented Oct 19, 2025

This adds a vendor extensions that helps with analyzing endpoints - would be very helpful for inventree/project-adr#4

This is more of a POC than something that could be merged

@matmair matmair added this to the 1.1.0 milestone Oct 19, 2025
@matmair matmair self-assigned this Oct 19, 2025
@matmair matmair added the api Relates to the API label Oct 19, 2025
@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Oct 19, 2025

Deploy Preview for inventree-web-pui-preview canceled.

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 5d92b70
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/projects/inventree-web-pui-preview/deploys/695ee4388332550008c6520c

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 19, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 51.85185% with 13 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 88.14%. Comparing base (5448e11) to head (5d92b70).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #10628      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.16%   88.14%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files        1290     1290              
  Lines       58141    58164      +23     
  Branches     1969     1969              
==========================================
+ Hits        51260    51270      +10     
- Misses       6390     6403      +13     
  Partials      491      491              
Flag Coverage Δ
backend 89.43% <51.85%> (-0.03%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components Coverage Δ
Backend Apps 92.01% <ø> (ø)
Backend General 93.48% <ø> (ø)
Frontend 70.85% <ø> (ø)
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@matmair
Copy link
Contributor Author

matmair commented Oct 21, 2025

@SchrodingersGat @wolflu05 this is more meant for maintainers then normal users as it enables us to write jq or spectral rules to lint the API. Any thoughts on additional things that might be helpful? By default nothing changes

debug_querycount: False
debug_shell: False

# Schema generation options
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As this is the default value, please comment it out in the config_template.yaml file - that way, if we ever change the default, we won't have users who are "locked in" to the old default

@SchrodingersGat
Copy link
Member

@matmair how is this intended to be used?

@matmair
Copy link
Contributor Author

matmair commented Oct 21, 2025

@matmair how is this intended to be used?

With this addition, a dev can set the config key, export the schema and then use any json/yaml tool to filter through the whole API to find issues like #8539 to ensure that the API works in a more uniform way.

Big picture, the goal is to create a set of rules that get run against the API spec to ensure all endpoints are working similar (ish).

@SchrodingersGat SchrodingersGat modified the milestones: 1.1.0, 1.2.0 Oct 31, 2025
@codspeed-hq
Copy link

codspeed-hq bot commented Jan 9, 2026

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 17.3%

Comparing matmair:extend-schema-intro (5d92b70) with master (70fcaa7)1

⚠️ Unknown Walltime execution environment detected

Using the Walltime instrument on standard Hosted Runners will lead to inconsistent data.

For the most accurate results, we recommend using CodSpeed Macro Runners: bare-metal machines fine-tuned for performance measurement consistency.

Summary

❌ 1 regressed benchmark
✅ 26 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 46 skipped benchmarks2

⚠️ Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

Mode Benchmark BASE HEAD Efficiency
WallTime test_api_list_performance[/api/part/] 75.5 ms 91.3 ms -17.3%

Footnotes

  1. No successful run was found on master (5448e11) during the generation of this report, so 70fcaa7 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report.

  2. 46 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

api Relates to the API

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants