full-stack-fastapi-template VS openapi-generator

This project is a modification of the authentication flow of the awesome repository made by tiangolo at full-stack-fastapi-postgresql

FastAPI with a PostgreSQL database: https://github.com/tiangolo/full-stack-fastapi-postgresql/tree/master

Ha! I do write SQL since that's where I cut my teeth many years ago. But I mostly use stored procedures where possible. I prefer not to use ORMs - sorry I don't find that side work... I am not saying Django's was bad or inferior, just do not prefer it. For FastAPI - maybe you missed the various repos with everything you mentioned was missing (there are great ones directly from the maintainer as well as others). No more glue than what you find in all the modules in a large Django project, just maybe in different forms and flavors. Besides, we're here to talk about Rust, making me wonder why we're debating two Python projects. Yes, I fell in love with Django, the romance faded in 2018, and I moved on. Feel free to enjoy using it - I'm not trying to sway you away from it!

I've just recently switched to a structure that follows Netflix's Dispatch application after starting with https://github.com/tiangolo/full-stack-fastapi-postgresql and it feels way better and organized.

Honestly your easiest option for data gathering would be to create google spreadsheets/forms and give each municipality access. For a custom data entry platform I suggest looking for templates like this one and learning how to add custom logic to the boilerplate: https://github.com/tiangolo/full-stack-fastapi-postgresql

I would encourage you to take a look at this repo: https://github.com/tiangolo/full-stack-fastapi-postgresql This is a boilerplate of an application made with fastapi, prepared by the creator of the fastapi himself. You can even set it up yourself locally and have a look how it’s organised. I know it has a lot of different services included, but I find the fastapi part itself to be well thought. Inside the api directory you can notice another folder named api_v1, so you can have multiple versions of your API routes when needed, with the general code in other places that is more generic and can be reused in all your different API versions. The schemas are separated from the models and models itself have different classes depending on what you would actually like to do with the data. The migrations are managed with alembic based on schemas rather than models itself. The settings are a python class that implicitly reads the .env file in your project’s directory. And many, many other interesting patterns to explore. Too much to write in one comment to be honest.

Disclaimer: We're an early adopter of Stainless at Mux.

I've spent more of my time than I'd like to admit managing both OpenAPi spec files [1] and fighting with openapi-generator [2] than any sane person should have to. While it's great having the freedom to change the templates an thus generated SDKs you get with using that sort of approach, it's also super time consuming, and when you have a lot of SDKs (we have 6 generated SDKs), in my experience it needs someone devoted to managing the process, staying up with template changes etc.

Excited to see more SDK languages come to Stainless!

[1] https://www.mux.com/blog/an-adventure-in-openapi-v3-api-code...

[2] https://github.com/OpenAPITools/openapi-generator

As a result, the following specification can be used to generate clients in a number of different languages via OpenAPI Generator.

Of course you can compile the server from source if you have Go and the OpenAPI generator JAR (https://github.com/OpenAPITools/openapi-generator?tab=readme...)

Follow these steps : https://github.com/c100k/rebootx-on-prem/blob/master/.github...

And then :

(cd ./impl/http-server-go && GOARCH=amd64 GOOS=openbsd go build -o /app/rebootx-on-prem-http-server-go-openbsd-amd64 -v)

By adapting the arch if needed. Not tested, but it should work.

TL;DR: Start generating your HTTP clients and all the DTOs of the requests and responses automatically from your API, using openapi-generator instead of writing your own.

As an alternative, you can also use the official OpenAPI Generator, which is a more generic tool supporting a wide range of languages and frameworks.

I trialed generating SDKs using the OpenAPI Generator package, which was largely unsatisfactory.

If Swagger/OpenAPI is available, save yourself a lot of trouble and generate the client using OpenAPI Generator. If not, use a library like RestEase to make it significantly easier to create the client.

For a run of the mill REST API you should generate OpenAPI (Swagger) info for the API using a library like NSwag or Swashbuckle. You'd want to do this no matter what because it's documentation for the API, but the bonus is that you can use it with tools like OpenAPI Generator to create API client code and models in a variety of languages. You certainly can create an API client library manually, it would entail having a nuget package with a class library that contains the models and client code for calling the endpoints (which I'd create using a lib such as RestEase unless you just enjoy writing boilerplate code by hand). However 95% of the time it simply isn't worth creating your own lib when OpenAPI is available because once you've done it a time or two it takes less than 5 min to run the generator and create (or update) a lib.

Then you can use oapi-codegen or openapi-generator to generate the Go (or other language) SDK for it.