Added an api module, implements #107

[volfpeter]

Added an api module, that contains:

• API: The base class to extend to document routes using a class-based syntax and possibly a single decorator. See its documentation for a proper description and example usage.
• Response: Helper class that is required by API to support doc.response().

[chenjr0719]

@volfpeter I will review this PR after #109 is done if you don't mind. I want to make standard test cases for this project first.
Before that, is it possible to add tests for this PR? I feel a little unsafe to put this into project without tests.

[volfpeter]

Sure, it's a good idea. I'll have a look at the current test cases to see how I can write some for this module.
Also, if you have any questions regarding the api module, please let me know. I know it's a quite large addition to the project and it requires a thorough review.

[volfpeter]

I've added tests for the api module (160+ lines, much more than all other tests combined).

• test_message_api_response() basically checks the decorators class attribute's implementation.
• test_documentation() compares the resulting swagger.json to a benchmark swagger.json (tests create an app with api-based docs and a benchmark app with doc-based docs).

api code coverage is 70% right now. Here is a list of things that are not tested yet:

• The exclude class attribute.
• Routing methods except post().
• Inline overrides in the decorator (like MessageAPI(consumes_content_type="application/xml", tag="xml") \ def foo(request): ...).

[ahopkins]

@volfpeter Can you run git rebase -i (or some other method) to squash your commits into a single?

[volfpeter]

For the record, since my previous comment, I've added tests for:

• The exclude class attribute.
• All routing methods.
• Inline override for the exclude class attribute.

Code coverage is over 90% after these changes, but of course there are plenty of things that could still be tested.

[volfpeter]

@chenjr0719 What is the status of this PR? Do you have an estimate when it could get a review?

[volfpeter]

@chenjr0719 Hi! Could you please give an estimate when this PR might get reviewed?

[chenjr0719]

@volfpeter Sorry about no response. I think I can get this done at the end of this Friday. Little busy recent days.

[volfpeter]

Thanks. No problem! I just wanted to get some feedback on how things are going.

[chenjr0719]

@volfpeter This PR really impressed me because of the readability and the nice implementation(especially about the partial func part). Very appreciated for your contribution.

But it seems not passed all unit tests which I added in #109. This is not your problem, and I will create an issue about it later. To get this PR merged, could you do me a favor to skip the following test?
https://github.com/huge-success/sanic-openapi/blob/cbf0f5b27fb6b56be048a8ef020b0082ac484543/tests/test_swagger.py#L56-L66

[volfpeter]

@chenjr0719 I've marked the test as skipped.

Thanks for the review and for accepting a whole new module into your project! I'm really happy to have contributed here.

One thing I miss a bit is a readme update. Should i do it? I didn't want to start editing the readme without permission or guidance on where you would like to have info about the api module...

[chenjr0719]

@volfpeter Actually, I would like to create a new document of this project with mkdocs and hosted on readthedocs. This will not only include how-to document but also include all API reference with your awesome works. But this might not be ready in recent days(at least after two weekends). So, I suggest that you can put the document at README or somewhere(e.g., docs/api_module.md) if you feel comfortable.

[volfpeter]

That's great! In this case, I'll leave everthing as it is right now, but please let me know if you need help writing documentation for this module. I'd be happy to help.

[chenjr0719]

@ahopkins I think this PR is ready to merge.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #111 into master will decrease coverage by 1.53%.
The diff coverage is 87.27%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #111      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage    96.8%   95.27%   -1.54%     
==========================================
  Files           3        4       +1     
  Lines         313      423     +110     
  Branches       68       87      +19     
==========================================
+ Hits          303      403     +100     
  Misses          6        6              
- Partials        4       14      +10

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
sanic_openapi/api.py	87.27% <87.27%> (ø)
sanic_openapi/doc.py	100% <0%> (+2%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 462bc59...ab07636. Read the comment docs.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #111 into master will decrease coverage by 1.53%.
The diff coverage is 87.27%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #111      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage    96.8%   95.27%   -1.54%     
==========================================
  Files           3        4       +1     
  Lines         313      423     +110     
  Branches       68       87      +19     
==========================================
+ Hits          303      403     +100     
  Misses          6        6              
- Partials        4       14      +10

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
sanic_openapi/api.py	87.27% <87.27%> (ø)
sanic_openapi/doc.py	100% <0%> (+2%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 462bc59...ab07636. Read the comment docs.