[bug: API] Metal Gateway associated with a Vlan does not show up when fetching VirtualNetwork by ID

[rinzler-17]

Sample instance returned by VlansApi.getVirtualNetwork(vlanId)

VirtualNetwork {
    assignedTo: class Href {
        href: /metal/v1/projects/{projectId}
        additionalProperties: null
    }
    assignedToVirtualCircuit: false
    description: null
    facility: null
    href: /metal/v1/virtual-networks/{vlanId}
    id: {vlanId}
    instances: []
    metalGateway: null
    metro: class Href {
        href: /metal/v1/locations/metros/{metroId}
        additionalProperties: null
    }
    metroCode: da
    vxlan: 200
    additionalProperties: {metal_gateways={}, created_at={timestamp}, facility_code=null}
}

metalGateway is null and metal_gateways under additionalProperties is empty. Also, what is the spec of value keyed by metal_gateways inside additionalProperties?

[rinzler-17]

@displague @VamshikShetty

[displague]

metalGateway is null and metal_gateways under additionalProperties is empty
what is the spec of value keyed by metal_gateways inside additionalProperties

The spec field metal_gateway should be metal_gateways and should be an array of Metal Gateway objects.

Using the include=metal_gateways parameter will expand the metal gateways from an href to the full object.

{...
"metal_gateways": [
  {
    "created_at": "2022-02-02T02:02:02Z"
    "gateway_address": "192.0.2.1/29"
    "href": "/metal-gateways/uuid-uuid-4b98-uuid-uuid"
    "id": "uuid-uuid-4b98-uuid-uuid"
    "state": "active"
    "updated_at": "2022-02-02T02:02:02Z"
    "vlan": 123
  }
]
}

[displague]

#35 has been merged but I'd like to keep this open issue until we discuss:

• 07 vlan metalgateways spec field patch #37 (comment)
• 07 vlan metalgateways spec field patch #37 (comment)

[rinzler-17]

In response to :

• 07 vlan metalgateways spec field patch #37 (comment) , I can change the vlan type to integer with range [2-3999] for MetalGatewayLite in another patch.
• 07 vlan metalgateways spec field patch #37 (comment) , we wanted to know why there is a MetalGatewayLite when there’s already a MetalGateway in the spec and how they're being used.

[displague]

why is there a MetalGatewayLite when there’s already a MetalGateway in the spec? how are they being used?

The API Spec (and the actual API response) offer a different view of some objects based on the context.

A “Lite” response (typically those offered as a shallow value with an href property, expanded through ?include=foo) may contain fewer fields than the response at GET /foo (we'll call this Foo vs FooLite`).

I would like to say that FooLite is always a subset of Foo, but that is not the case. In some situations, FooLite contains fields that are not present in Foo. I believe there are some examples of Foo and FooLite sharing a common field name with different response formats or values.

In short, they should be treated as related, but not necessarily the same nor extending.