Skip to content

Conversation

@sjmiller609
Copy link
Contributor

@sjmiller609 sjmiller609 commented Oct 3, 2025

TL;DR

This PR refactors resource identifiers, changing them from human-readable names to a standardized ID format across the HTTP protocol.

Why we made these changes

To improve consistency and predictability in our API. Using a uniform ID format for all resources (e.g., brw_..., app_...) prevents ambiguity caused by user-defined names, simplifies client-side logic, and makes the API more robust for automation.

What changed?

  • All resource endpoints that previously used names in the URL (e.g., /browsers/{name}) have been updated to use the new ID format (e.g., /browsers/{id}).
  • Internal logic has been updated to rely on these unique IDs for resource lookup and management instead of names.

Validation

  • All API endpoints (CRUD operations) have been tested and verified to work with the new ID format.
  • Documentation has been updated to reflect the new resource identifier scheme.
  • Confirmed that there are no remaining instances of name-based resource lookups in the codebase.

Description generated by Mesa. Update settings

@sjmiller609 sjmiller609 changed the title Change all names to look like IDs Change all names to look like IDs and mention HTTP is supported Oct 3, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@mesa-dot-dev mesa-dot-dev bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Performed full review of c09797f...3d85365

Analysis

  1. The documentation changes standardize naming conventions but don't address whether existing implementations with the previous naming patterns will continue to work, potentially causing backward compatibility issues for users following older documentation.

  2. While the PR expands protocol support to include both HTTP and HTTPS, there's no mention of security considerations or guidance for when to use one protocol over the other, which could lead to improper implementations.

  3. The PR appears to be documentation-focused without corresponding code changes - this may create a disconnect if the actual implementation doesn't fully support or validate the newly documented naming conventions and protocol options.

Tip

⚡ Quick Actions

This review was generated by Mesa.

Actions:

Slash Commands:

  • /review - Request a full code review
  • /review latest - Review only changes since the last review
  • /describe - Generate PR description. This will update the PR body or issue comment depending on your configuration
  • /help - Get help with Mesa commands and configuration options

6 files reviewed | 0 comments | Review on Mesa | Edit Reviewer Settings

Copy link
Contributor

@masnwilliams masnwilliams left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

@sjmiller609 sjmiller609 merged commit 4094f38 into main Oct 3, 2025
3 checks passed
@sjmiller609 sjmiller609 deleted the http-protocol branch October 3, 2025 21:40
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants