Arazzo Specification

[philsturgeon]

The Arazzo Specification Guide is taking form.

Introduction

• What is it?
• History
• Benefits

Understanding Structure

• Basic Structure
• Defining Sources
• Success and failure
• Components and references
• Steps, inputs, outputs
• Workflows

Working with Arazzo

• Runtime Expressions

Misc

• Cheatsheet

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for bump-content-hub ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	f072eb1
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/bump-content-hub/deploys/69aab7402051f100084d014a
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-431--bump-content-hub.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

[grossyoan]

Hi there!

Some small typos/additions on the first pages ready to review. It's a great piece of work 🙏

[grossyoan]

Thanks a lot for the hard work, Phil 🙏

[Polo2]

The whole reading is very interesting, we learn a lot about Arazzo specification and use case, with a lot of clear examples and the cheatsheet, well done 👏

I left two suggestions in code example to stick with the specification:

• clarification with string interpolation and runtime expression (based on sentence "Runtime expressions preserve the type of the referenced value. Expressions can be embedded into string values by surrounding the expression with {} curly braces.")
• clarification about how component is referenced (favor the full path with $components.)

Beside that, all good to merge, and well done for the huge work 🙌

[Polo2]

Arazzo ready 🎉

[paulRbr]

It's quite unclear for me how runtine expressions when you need to access data within a payload (a payload being an object that is not described by the spec but by the API response or request bodies, parameters or inputs).

From what I understand from the spec it seems this line should be written:

Suggested change

	- name: $inputs.passengers[0].name
	- name: $inputs.passengers#/0/name

However, I pretty much dislike and disagree with this syntax and Im much more aligned to what you wrote.. Internally at Bump we have defined a custom spec which will allow to use jmespath (or maybe jsonpath) in those expressions so that dot notations work as we could expect.

What do you think? Is this something I misunderstood?

[paulRbr]

I dug further for this. It seems the json pointer expression is only for requests or responses bodies per the ABNF syntax of runtime expression defined by the arazzo spec. (and here an example in the arazzo spec repository)

So this seems to be the legitimate way of accessing complex inputs.

[paulRbr]

As stated in a previous comment, Im completely aligned with your dot notation to access payload data. But I dont think it's how arazzo specifies it (even if it isnt really clear)...