SpaceX-API VS openapi-directory

SpaceX REST API

This is what i meant by that explanation. In this project we will make a request to a SpaceX API and the results we want from the huge chunk of data we will be receiving from the API are: id of type string, flight_number of type int, name and details of type string and success of type boolean.

This is a cool api, spacex posts all of their flight info on here, and there's no auth which might make it easier for testing/learning: https://github.com/r-spacex/SpaceX-API

I like this unofficial SpaceX API. I am using it in examples for API-related tutorials and to train less experience technical personnel. Works like a charm so far :)

5. SpaceX API

Here's one that I've made showing all the active boosters using the unofficial SpaceX API

To display the next scheduled launch date, we have to fetch our data from the API. Therefore we will use the following API Documentation spacexdata.com API.

Use APIs.gurufor exploring well-documented OpenAPI files. For example, imagine you are interested in integrating a weather API. By searching for "weather" on APIs.guru, you find several options.

Furthermore, since we can split the generated code into multiple parts based on tag filtering, we can also create different SDKs from different resources or even publicly available APIs. There is an extensive list of publicly available OpenAPI specifications on SwaggerHub, RapidAPI and APIs.guru.

Maybe you'd like to integrate with APIs.guru?

https://apis.guru

In this specific case, I'm auto-publishing (now fully automatically, once a month) a package that wraps content from elsewhere bundling it with some utilities to make that useful in JS and available via NPM. For cases like this it's useful to have a patch update once a month that just updates the upstream content & republishes.

- Crawl API repositories like apis.guru

This should go without saying, but the types inside your API specification should be specific in order to be useful. The main way I see this appear is that some specification generators seem to default to "string" for everything, even if something else makes sense. In an analysis of 1154 specifications from OpenAPI directory, I found that 60% of the field types were strings. Many of these were instances that made sense, such as IDs or names, but many were misused types: for example, there was a year value encoded with type "string," and a boolean value with type "string" and enum "true" or "false". Using too-broad types such as strings can make it harder to understand the specification, and decrease the effectiveness of certain tools.

I haven’t used it but have skimmed through it, but https://apis.guru has collected information on lots of APIs. You might find something interesting.

Try the integration designer with your OpenAPI documents. If you don’t have any document handy, we prepared a few examples for you, or you can find more OpenAPI documents on APIs.guru.

apis.guru is a nice site with APIs listed for many orgs.