-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[API Explorer] Self-hosted API Explorer #559
Comments
I am proposing to enhance RestServer/RestApplication with an API allowing consumers to mount static files, for example With this new API in place, we can either write an API Explorer component bundling swagger-ui and calling |
My preference would be to have an API explorer built in since it provides a better DX in my opinion just like it's included in LB3. |
since it's an epic, moving to the backlog |
I really need this! |
@lsemerini We have a WIP pull request - #1664 |
@lsemerini BTW, https://github.com/Rebilly/ReDoc seems to be cool. Serving it via |
@raymondfeng should we use ReDoc for our API Explorer extension too, replacing swagger-ui we have in LB 3.x? |
Closing as done. All the tasks in this epic are completed. |
As an API developer, I would like to see the OpenAPI spec of my APIs created with LoopBack and have the web UI to visualize the API endpoints and allow me to play with the APIs.
It's important for the API Explorer to be available offline (as opposed to a version hosted on loopback.io):
Acceptance criteria
Expose endpoints for OpenAPI specs in various combinations of versions and formats, such as:
Allow such specs to be rendered with http://editor.swagger.io/ with appropriate CORS settings.Have the option to install a component to enable built-in web UI for the API explorer
Build a (new) LoopBack4 extension based on the approach we have already implemented in loopback-component-explorer. Use the latest version of swagger-ui to make sure we support both Swagger (v2) and OpenAPI (v3), see strongloop/loopback-component-explorer#209
Possibly related, but not strictly required: #691
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: