#280 Upgrade API documentation (Swagger -> OpenAPI 3.0)

[paulrinaldi]

Addresses #280

[douglasmanzelmann]

I noticed that none of the successful responses have a fleshed out schema. Why is that?

[apreiter18]

I noticed that none of the successful responses have a fleshed out schema. Why is that?

@douglasmanzelmann - can you please create an issue that details 1) what you are currently experiencing and 2) what your expectation of the data is? That way, we can analyze what you report. Thank you.

[apreiter18]

I noticed that none of the successful responses have a fleshed out schema. Why is that?

@douglasmanzelmann - can you please create an issue that details 1) what you are currently experiencing and 2) what your expectation of the data is? That way, we can analyze what you report. Thank you.

[douglasmanzelmann]

I noticed that none of the successful responses have a fleshed out schema. Why is that?

@douglasmanzelmann - can you please create an issue that details 1) what you are currently experiencing and 2) what your expectation of the data is? That way, we can analyze what you report. Thank you.

Considering this isn't merged, would creating an issue make sense?

As for what I'm expecting, here's an example of the issue. A successful response returns an object without specifying any of the fields that would be returned. So if I wanted to generate an API client from this, it would still require a lot of manual work and guess work to know what would come back.

[apreiter18]

I noticed that none of the successful responses have a fleshed out schema. Why is that?

@douglasmanzelmann - can you please create an issue that details 1) what you are currently experiencing and 2) what your expectation of the data is? That way, we can analyze what you report. Thank you.

Considering this isn't merged, would creating an issue make sense?

As for what I'm expecting, here's an example of the issue. A successful response returns an object without specifying any of the fields that would be returned. So if I wanted to generate an API client from this, it would still require a lot of manual work and guess work to know what would come back.

Thanks - this is helpful. No issue needed here.

[douglasmanzelmann]

@apreiter18 Saw that this is due for release in January with the return fields/types. And noticed this was updated, too: https://gpo.congress.gov/#/. Really appreciate it!

[apreiter18]

Hi @douglasmanzelmann - just a quick note: please use api.congress.gov, not gpo.congress.gov. This is a legacy URL that we are working to remove from search engines, etc. Thanks!

[douglasmanzelmann]

api.congress.gov,

@apreiter18 Duly noted! Thank you. One thing about the schema (and there's an issue somewhat relating to this here), is there are a few validation issues. They're all relatively easy to fix, I believe, and I'm open to opening a PR with potential fixes, but if you paste either the json or yaml schema into something like this https://editor.swagger.io/, you'll see the errors. Using a code generator with the schema, I encountered these errors and until they're fixed, it's not able to generate code.

Edit:
There's also a bit of a name collision for code generators (I'm using https://hex.pm/packages/oapi_generator for elixir) with this bit of the schema. The name conflicts with the singular crsreport above it.