Detailed User Data - sort_name field: Software or Documentation Bug?

[tking]

Dear OX hackers,

I just encountered a strange behavior I assume it is a bug. If I call getUser (GET /ajax/user?action=get) from the ox.io backend (Server version 7.2.0 Rev 4) I receive the following json string:
{"timestamp":1352716848083,"data":{"uid":"b532a db5-b099-45d5-8ae0-bd121aed7d7c","created_by":3,"login_info":"oxsdemo ","contact_id":2,"locale":"en_US","useCount":0,"fi le_as":"oxs12","aliases":["oxsdemo@ox.io"],"email1":"oxsdemo@ox.io","number_of_im
ages":0,"email2":"king@audriga.com","sort_name":"d emooxs12","id":3,"creation_date":1352720448083,"fo lder_id":6,"display_name":"oxs12","first_name":"ox s12","timezone":"Europe/Berlin","last_modified":1352720448083,"modified_by ":3,"last_modified_utc":1352716848083,"last_na m
e":"demo","user_id":3,"groups":[0,1]}}

The problem occurs from the sort_name field. In the HTTP API documentation (http://oxpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=HTTP_API) there is no sort_name field. Is this a software or a documentation bug?

I recognized that the HTTP API documentation is not updated for a while. A previous bug I encountered was also related to missing documentation updates. Did the documentation update policy change?

Best regards,
Thomas

[Tobias Prinz]

I recognized that the HTTP API documentation is not updated for a while. A previous bug I encountered was also related to missing documentation updates. Did the documentation update policy change?

General information:
Our policy has not changed: The things we document, we support. Which, of course, means that if we do not document it, we do not support it ;-)

We may introduce new fields and methods to the HTTP API occasionally (though we are quite happy it is very stable).

We may however add fields or even methods that we do not publish in the HTTP API at first. They might seem necessary for future features and we'll try them out before bothering our users with them. Those should be considered even less than experimental. Once we decide on keeping them, we'll document them so you can rely on a clearly defined behaviour.

Side note: Sadly you may see traces of them already when requesting a complete object. Please just ignore them, because, as said, they might change or disappear. Since they will only show up in JSON objects where fields are generally accessed via name and not like an array, they should not bother you.

As for this specific field, you just got us discussing whether we should already publish information about it or wait until the next release as planned.

[tking]

Thanks for clarifying the documentation process.

Thomas