You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hey there! Really like this project & have found it very helpful to create a simple CMS of sorts.
I just have one issue & that is that the api doesn't return file names, but rather just an array of URLs. For example here's an example notion page & this is potion's api response for it. It would be very helpful to provide the filenames in the response to show attachments on the client side for example.
I have a solution for it working locally it's just a small change in the api/table.js file, just wondering if this would be an ok PR. Especially because it is a breaking change to the table api.
Yep agreed, that's why I created this issue, didn't just wanna pull request out of the blue. I've mostly seen api versioning done either through a subdomain (like v3.api.github.com) or as a nested page (like api.github.com/v3).
The nested page one seems easier to implement using Vercel. I tried a basic implementation locally by just forwarding /v2 requests to the regular api but with a version query parameter. This is how it looks like in now.json:
To be completely honest I'm not very sure about the correct way to go about it, so go for whatever you think is right. Even if you don't wanna add it to the hosted endpoint I totally understand. I can always self-host it internally within the project.
Hey there! Really like this project & have found it very helpful to create a simple CMS of sorts.
I just have one issue & that is that the api doesn't return file names, but rather just an array of URLs. For example here's an example notion page & this is potion's api response for it. It would be very helpful to provide the filenames in the response to show attachments on the client side for example.
I have a solution for it working locally it's just a small change in the
api/table.js
file, just wondering if this would be an ok PR. Especially because it is a breaking change to the table api.Here is the change btw:
instead of just pushing the url to output files.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: