[DIA-2458] Review params to GET /messages endpoint

[bohdan-go-wombat]

No description provided.

[andresilveirah]

@bohdan-go-wombat we don't need to add the @SerialName notation if the attribute in the data class has the same name as on the final json.

[bohdan-go-wombat]

@andresilveirah yes, we can exclude this annotation in that case, but then we stumble upon the thing when we have a bunch of params marked with the annotation, while others are not.

I think the code is more structured and "clear" this way, when you explicitly point out the name of the attribute, even if the name is the same with the param of the model inside the native code.

[andresilveirah]

I agree with you, if we'd have many fields with different names, that'd be confusing. But I believe that's not the case right? From what I could see, most json fields have identical names as the attributes with a few exceptions.

We might be getting in the realm of "opinion" now, but I believe this:

@Serializable
data class IncludeData(
    val localState: IncludeDataParam? = null,
    val tcData: IncludeDataParam? = null,
    val campaigns: IncludeDataParam? = null,
    val customVendorsResponse: IncludeDataParam? = null,
    val messageMetaData: IncludeDataParam? = null,
    val webConsentPayload: IncludeDataParam? = null,
)

Is clearer than this:

@Serializable
data class IncludeData(
    @SerialName("localState")
    val localState: IncludeDataParam? = null,
    @SerialName("TCData")
    val tcData: IncludeDataParam? = null,
    @SerialName("campaigns")
    val campaigns: IncludeDataParam? = null,
    @SerialName("customVendorsResponse")
    val customVendorsResponse: IncludeDataParam? = null,
    @SerialName("messageMetaData")
    val messageMetaData: IncludeDataParam? = null,
    @SerialName("webConsentPayload")
    val webConsentPayload: IncludeDataParam? = null,
)

And, do we need to assign null if the attribute is optional? Could we replace, for example, this:

val webConsentPayload: IncludeDataParam? = null,

with this:

val webConsentPayload: IncludeDataParam?

[bohdan-go-wombat]

1. It is definitelly a matter of opinion, and from my point of view this:

@Serializable
data class IncludeData(
    @SerialName("localState")
    val localState: IncludeDataParam? = null,
    @SerialName("TCData")
    val tcData: IncludeDataParam? = null,
    @SerialName("campaigns")
    val campaigns: IncludeDataParam? = null,
    @SerialName("customVendorsResponse")
    val customVendorsResponse: IncludeDataParam? = null,
    @SerialName("messageMetaData")
    val messageMetaData: IncludeDataParam? = null,
    @SerialName("webConsentPayload")
    val webConsentPayload: IncludeDataParam? = null,
)

is more readable and clear than this:

@Serializable
data class IncludeData(
    val localState: IncludeDataParam? = null,
    @SerialName("TCData") val tcData: IncludeDataParam? = null,
    val campaigns: IncludeDataParam? = null,
    val customVendorsResponse: IncludeDataParam? = null,
    val messageMetaData: IncludeDataParam? = null,
    val webConsentPayload: IncludeDataParam? = null,
)

especially, when the IDE highlights what is the parameter of the model itself and what is the name for the serizalization.

---

2. Regarding your second question, we need to have default values, which allows us to create an instance of IncludeData without passing null to each parameter we don't need, so it looks like this:

fun generateIncludeDataForMessages(): IncludeData = IncludeData(
    tcData = IncludeDataParam(IncludeDataParamType.RECORD_STRING.type),
    campaigns = IncludeDataParam(IncludeDataParamType.RECORD_STRING.type),
    webConsentPayload = IncludeDataParam(IncludeDataParamType.RECORD_STRING.type),
)

and not like this:

fun generateIncludeDataForMessages(): IncludeData = IncludeData(
    localState = null,
    tcData = IncludeDataParam(IncludeDataParamType.RECORD_STRING.type),
    campaigns = IncludeDataParam(IncludeDataParamType.RECORD_STRING.type),
    customVendorsResponse = null,
    messageMetaData = null,
    webConsentPayload = IncludeDataParam(IncludeDataParamType.RECORD_STRING.type),
)