Planner task details endpoint consistency

[Jwaegebaert]

In the commands planner task details get and planner task set, we make use of the details endpoint but they are a bit different on the naming consistency.
Is it maybe interesting to align these commands with the Graph Rest API and split the planner task set command to planner task set and planner task details set.
Or possibly the other way around. That we merge planner task details get with planner task get.

What are your ideas?

doc references:

• Update plannerTask
• Update plannerTaskDetails
• Get plannerTask
• Get plannerTaskDetails

[waldekmastykarz]

Could you elaborate a bit what the differences are that you're referring to?

[waldekmastykarz]

I think the set option is easy, because we can expose an extra option(s) for the user to specify. For get, what would be the shape of the data that combines both PlannerTask and PlannerTaskDetails? Do they have unique properties that won't collide with each other?

[Jwaegebaert]

Good point, I did some digging and found the following. If we start looking at the models there is 1 property that is the same for both.

PlannerTask Model:

{
  "createdBy": { },
  "planId": "xqQg5FS2LkCp935s-FIFm2QAFkHM",
  "bucketId": "gcrYAaAkgU2EQUvpkNNXLGQAGTtu",
  "title": "title-value",
  "orderHint": "9223370609546166567W",
  "assigneePriority": "90057581\"",
  "createdDateTime": "2015-03-25T18:36:49.2407981Z",
  "assignments": { },
  "id": "01gzSlKkIUSUl6DF_EilrmQAKDhh"
}

PlannerTaskDetails Model:

{
  "description": "Task details properties:\nchecklist:Sub items\nreferences:Related links",
  "previewType": "automatic",
  "references": { },
  "checklist": { },
  "id": "01gzSlKkIUSUl6DF_EilrmQAKDhh"
}

So here I've simplified a few parts but you' ll see here that both models do return the same Id. This is in both cases just the task Id. With combining the two models we will need to check that we don't return the Id twice. That's the only complication I see at the moment for the get command to start combining these models.

[waldekmastykarz]

If there are no properties that collide with each other, then we could definitely merge both objects into one. Good find 👍

[Jwaegebaert]

Perfect. Shall I create a new issue for this? Or should we wait until the issue #3229 is completed that we won't get merge conflicts within the same file?

[waldekmastykarz]

Awesome that you consider #3229. Let's create the issue already and mark it as on-hold until #3229 comes through