taxilang VS utoipa

Under the hood, the tags (and associated query language) are actually Taxi - an OSS meta-language and toolchain we build (and have shared previously).

Taxi is a relatively new entrant in the API space. It's goal is to let developers add simple, (but type-safe) tags into their APIs, so software can understand how different APIs relate to one another.

One of the gripes I have about OpenAPI is that it has a very low signal-to-noise ratio. It was bad in JSON, it's just as bad in YAML, with an added whitespace pedantry.

It's great to see a number of alternatives listed in this thread - there's much more active development in this space then I was aware of, and I hope that some of it gets upstreamed back into OpenAPI.

I'll shamelessly plug our tool in this space - Taxi (https://github.com/taxilang/taxilang), which has a dedicated DSL (not YAML) you can either use standalone, or embeddedd within OpenAPI.

I also happen to think that (for internal teams at least), generating clients on ${apiSpec} is a form of tight coupling, where producer and consumer become tied together. If you can avoid it, you should, as it allows producers and consumers to stay loosely coupled and evolve independetly without the gymnastics of avoiding breaking changes.

I've talked about this before, with proposed solutions.[0]

[0]https://orbitalhq.com/blog/2023-01-16-using-semantic-metadat...

In case you didn't know https://github.com/juhaku/utoipa is really nice to generate openapi spec and have a swagger!

play-swagger [2] for scala + play. They generate a significant portion of your spec for you, then a client can be generated from the spec.

[1] https://github.com/juhaku/utoipa

[2] https://github.com/iheartradio/play-swagger

utoipa

Latest release notes: https://github.com/juhaku/utoipa/releases/tag/utoipa-3.0.0

I've written a few backend APIs with rust and I have to disagree. Not only have the frameworks managed to get the ergonomics similar to your popular GC lang[0][1], the natural lack of shared mutable state of HTTP handlers means you very rarely have to encounter lifetimes and a lot of the language's advanced features. What's more, now when I go back to work with other languages, I can't help but notice the significant number of unit tests I'd not have had to write in Rust. It doesn't have a Rails and Django but it's an easy pick over anything at the language level.

A note on performance, Rust's the only langauge where I haven't had the need to update my unit test harnesses to `TRUNCATE` data base data instead of creating a separate db per test on PostgresSQL.

I'll also like to mention the gem that is SQLx[1]. As someone who's never been satisfied with ORMs, type checked SQL queries that auto-populate your custom types is revolutionary. With the error-prone langauge-SQL boundary covered, I was surprised just how good it can get making use of the builtin PostgreSQL features. Almost to the point that amount of effort the community's put to building great tools like Prisma.js and feel like a fool's errand (at least so for PosgreSQL).

[0]: https://github.com/alexpusch/rust-magic-function-params

[1]: https://github.com/juhaku/utoipa

[3]: lib.rs/crates/sqlx

Going to strongly disagree here. This isn't necessary in most cases. You likely do not need to test actix-web. actix-web already has more tests than you can possibly think of for exercising its correctness. So why do you need to black-box test it? Further, if your concern is an API client integrating with the API, use code generation not tests to ensure correctness! Generate your clients from a spec generated from your types! I recommend Swagger/OpenAPI or JSON Schema. Here's a nice library for doing this: https://github.com/juhaku/utoipa

utoipa: supports most popular frameworks

Something like that is planned in future releases. There is a closed discussion in Github https://github.com/juhaku/utoipa/issues/201 and traits for this already exists but the derive implementaiton is yet to be done.

Those tags next function parameters look cool. Do you maybe know a crate Utoipa and could share differences between the two crates for those who want to quickly compare them? I've been using utoipa but also I've been following the discussion on Axum's repo about OpenAPI integration in hope for something more comfortable to write. Taking a quick peek they seem very similar but I'm guessing the approach is slightly different?