Add comprehensive API review documentation with Context7 verification

[Copilot]

Overview

This PR adds comprehensive documentation reviewing all core API files in the InsightVM-Python library against the official Rapid7 InsightVM API v3 specifications using Context7's Rapid7 API documentation as the authoritative reference source.

What Was Done

Conducted a thorough review of all 16 core API files (authentication, client, base API, and 12 API modules) to verify alignment with official Rapid7 InsightVM API v3 specifications. The review focused on:

• Endpoint naming conventions and paths
• HTTP method usage (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE)
• Authentication implementation
• Request parameters and response structures
• Pagination and filtering support
• Error handling patterns

Documentation Added

1. docs/API_REVIEW_FINDINGS.md (15KB)

Comprehensive review document containing:

• Executive summary with overall assessment (Grade: A+ Excellent)
• Detailed findings for each of the 16 core files
• API specification alignment verification
• Endpoint naming convention validation
• Security considerations
• Best practices observed
• Minor recommendations (cosmetic only)

2. docs/API_ENDPOINT_REFERENCE.md (10KB)

Quick reference guide providing:

• Complete list of all API endpoints with correct paths
• Common query parameters (pagination, sorting, filtering)
• Response structure documentation
• Usage examples for common operations
• Authentication requirements
• Module-to-endpoint mapping

Key Findings

✅ Excellent Implementation

The library demonstrates exceptional alignment with Rapid7 InsightVM API v3 specifications:

• Endpoint naming is CORRECT: Uses underscores (scan_engines, asset_groups, scan_engine_pools, vulnerability_exceptions) as per official API spec
• Authentication is CORRECT: HTTPBasicAuth properly implemented with secure credential management
• All HTTP methods align with REST API specifications
• Pagination parameters match API requirements (max 500 per page)
• Error handling follows proper exception propagation patterns
• Type hints are comprehensive throughout the codebase
• All 67 tests passing (6 skipped)

⚠️ Minor Note (No Functional Impact)

The constants.py file contains unused endpoint definitions with inconsistent naming (uses hyphens instead of underscores). However, this has zero functional impact because:

• The constants are not actively used in the codebase
• Each API module correctly hardcodes the proper endpoint names with underscores
• Optional cleanup recommended for consistency only

Verification Source

All findings were cross-referenced against:

• Context7 Rapid7 InsightVM API Documentation: https://github.com/riza/rapid7-insightvm-api-docs
• Official Rapid7 Documentation: https://docs.rapid7.com/insightvm/restful-api/
• InsightVM API v3 Specification: https://help.rapid7.com/insightvm/en-us/api/index.html

Impact

This documentation provides:

• For developers: Quick reference for correct endpoint usage and naming conventions
• For reviewers: Comprehensive verification that the library correctly implements the API
• For maintainers: Baseline for future API updates and version migrations
• For users: Confidence that the library properly implements Rapid7's specifications

Testing

• ✅ All existing tests pass (67 passed, 6 skipped)
• ✅ No functional code changes (documentation only)
• ✅ No regressions introduced

Conclusion

The InsightVM-Python library is production-ready and correctly implements the Rapid7 InsightVM API v3 specifications. This documentation serves as verification of the implementation quality and provides valuable reference material for ongoing development.

Overall Grade: A+ (Excellent)

Original prompt

utilizing context7's rapid7 api information review the entire core api files

Created from VS Code via the GitHub Pull Request extension.

---

💬 Share your feedback on Copilot coding agent for the chance to win a $200 gift card! Click here to start the survey.

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR adds comprehensive documentation that reviews the InsightVM-Python library's API implementation against official Rapid7 InsightVM API v3 specifications. The review validates endpoint naming conventions, authentication methods, and API patterns across all 16 core files in the library.

Key Changes:

• Added thorough API implementation review documenting A+ grade alignment with Rapid7 specifications
• Created quick reference guide for all API endpoints with correct naming conventions and usage examples
• Verified endpoint naming uses proper underscores (e.g., scan_engines, asset_groups) as per official API specs

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 10 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.

File	Description
docs/API_REVIEW_FINDINGS.md	Comprehensive 15KB review document with detailed findings for all 16 core API files, security analysis, and implementation verification
docs/API_ENDPOINT_REFERENCE.md	10KB quick reference guide listing all API endpoints, common parameters, response structures, and usage examples

[Copilot]

The documentation shows hardcoded credentials in the example code, which violates security best practices. Replace with placeholder values like "<USERNAME>" and "<PASSWORD>" or show only the environment variable approach to avoid encouraging credential hardcoding.

Suggested change

	username="admin",
	password="password",
	username="<USERNAME>",
	password="<PASSWORD>",

[codacy-production]

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation	Diff coverage
✅ +0.00% (target: -1.00%)	✅ ∅

Coverage variation details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Coverage
Common ancestor commit (ad874ec)	1204	414	34.39%
Head commit (07c66be)	1204 (+0)	414 (+0)	34.39% (+0.00%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Diff coverage
Pull request (#103)	0	0	∅ (not applicable)

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences