Pylons / Pylons/pyramid_openapi3
Reconsider API spec autogeneration
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 84
- Forks
- 46
- Avg merge
- 5d 20h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 3
Description
This is a controversial thing and I am playing the devil's advocate but I've seen a great push towards FastAPI from Pyramid or sidelining Pyramid completely at our clients, connections and partners just because FastAPI seemingly makes it easier to evolve the API design rapidly with code. Everyone who is actually evolving the API is complaining about having to do the changes twice or thrice to the API document, view code and actual model handling. Only I seem to be defending the design, which might just be because I have never touched the YAML myself :D
Perhaps there could be some hybrid approach that would combine best of both worlds, making it possible to derive the API spec from code up to a point - not unlike how Sphinx Autodoc works for documentation
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
No files, tests, or entry points are named. Start by mapping the existing API document, view code, and model-handling workflow in pyramid_openapi3, then compare it with FastAPI's code-derived approach. Before implementation, establish a concrete scope and acceptance criteria for what can be autogenerated.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- fastapi, openapi, python
- Domain
- api, backend-api-design
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 20/100