Re: Inconsistency in retrieval of service plans
|
John Feminella <jxf@...>
hi Roopali,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I think Benjamin meant https://apidocs.cloudfoundry.org. Ordering doesn't seem to be part of the contract of `inline-relations-depth`: https://apidocs.cloudfoundry.org/258/services/list_all_service_plans_for_the_service.html So the ordering is likely to be arbitrary if you use that parameter; since it's arbitrary, you probably shouldn't depend on it.From the documentation, `inline-relations-depth` is deprecated, so I also wouldn't depend on it for that reason either. Not sure if this works for you, but maybe you can get what you want by using the `?q=…` query to get the correct ordering, then including whatever data you'd like from the arbitrarily-ordered `inline-relations-depth` query and merging the two results. best,~ jf--John Feminella Advisory Platform Architect ✉ ·jxf(a)pivotal.io t · @jxxf On Wed, May 10, 2017 5:47 AM, Roopali Sharma roopali1193(a)gmail.com wrote:
Hello, The given link , http://api.cloudfoundry.org/ , does not give any details as to the implementation differences of the APIs wherein the discrepancy lies, For my investigations, I deployed a sample broker with ten sample plans , with the first call which is " /v2/service_plans?q=<service_guid> " the plan order of broker is respected at all times but the second call does some sort using plan_ids, plan name and plan types(free or paid, public or private) and responds with a differently ordered list . Could you redirect me to some link where in this difference is clarified... |
|
|