[API] Cleaner way to create a tag?

[jack2]

Right now, in order to create a tag with the API, I create a temporary topic with the new tag, then delete the temporary topic. Is there a cleaner way?

[pfaffman (Jay Pfaffman)]

I don’t know, but a slightly less painful solution would be to create a post in the staff category (where Assets for site design is) and just add the new tags there.

The reason is that you want to create a bunch of tags so that users can use them in the future, but your community doesn’t yet have posts with those tags?

[jack2]

Thanks @pfaffman.

@pfaffman

I don’t know, but a slightly less painful solution would be to create a post in the staff category (where Assets for site design is) and just add the new tags there.

You mean manually adding the new tag? Or is it possible to use the “Update a single topic” API to add a tag to an existing topic? But in that case I would have to store the topic id, which is painful…

@pfaffman

The reason is that you want to create a bunch of tags so that users can use them in the future, but your community doesn’t yet have posts with those tags?

I guess this would be a legit use case. But mine is less legit: I use tags to store metadata (object ids from an external app).

[riking (Kane York)]

@jack2

I guess this would be a legit use case. But mine is less legit: I use tags to store metadata (object ids from an external app).

Yeah, that’s not a good idea, especially if each tag is only used once.

You should either have a separate database mapping the external IDs to Discourse topic IDs, or write a plugin and use topic custom fields (this is a problem since there’s no existing mechanism to deliver these to the client, I think).

Another solution is to store the value in the post text.

[jack2]

Since there is a legit use case, I believe adding a “new tag” API in the future would be a plus.

I can feel the danger of using tags the way I do. But as I need to display, in Discourse, a list of the topics that relate to a specific external object, the “tags.show” route seems the only way…

[riking (Kane York)]

Well, what are the external objects? How many topics will one get? will a topic relate to multiple of these things?

You may be able to get away with using search.

[jack2]

The external objects are document subsections. One topic relates to one and only one subsection. A minimum guess is: 100 documents x 100 subsections per document = 10,000 subsections = 10,000 tags in a single Discourse instance. I know this is dangerous, but since I’m in the prototype phase, tags are good enough for me.

Now I didn’t think about the search page before… I’ve just done some tests, but sadly, the results are not formatted like a topic list (with the ‘Replies’, ‘Views’ and ‘Activity’ columns). I guess a “topics only” checkbox that turns the result page into a standard Discourse topic list would be exactly what I need.

[riking (Kane York)]

Consider not pre-creating that many topics - there’s often not much to discuss about the Bibliography. You can have a small service that takes a document & subsection ID and redirects you to either the existing topic or opens the composer pre-filled with the document link, subsection ID, etc.

title: Procedures for Smelling, section Keyboards
body: <https://link.to/document/1234#sec-26>

[write your text here]

lookup key: DISCUSS_1234_26

Then it polls /latest.json for new topics and checks them for the magic ID reference phrase I put in on the last line of the example.

[jack2]

Yes, I already have something like this. I don’t create the subsection tags beforehand when a document is created. I’ve changed the “tag not found” page of a subsection so that it looks like an empty topic list with a “New Topic” button at the top. When user clicks the button, I create the tag on the fly using the API and open the composer pre-filled with the generated tag.

[syl]

@jack2

Right now, in order to create a tag with the API, I create a temporary topic with the new tag, then delete the temporary topic. Is there a cleaner way?

Yes there is: create a tag group populated with the tag you want to create (see the API here).

[syl]

The above method to create a tag with the API (by creating a tag group) has one drawback: it works only if you’re an admin.

[syl]

E mais uma maneira de criar tags com a API (mas ainda apenas para administradores): a API não documentada /tags/upload.json, usada pelo menu Upload Tags. Use-a assim:

const tags = ['tag1', 'tag2']
const file = new Blob([tags.join('\n')], { type: 'text/plain' })
const formData = new FormData()
formData.append('file', file)
$.ajax({
  type: 'POST',
  url: '/tags/upload.json',
  data: formData,
  contentType: false,
  processData: false
})

[SumOne]

Se planejo ter milhares de tags, ainda é uma boa ideia usar essa solução alternativa, criando um grupo para cada tag? Os grupos de tags são tão ágeis quanto as tags?

Se forem, isso resolve meu problema imediato. Se não forem, tentarei evitar a duplicação (de tag + grupo de tags para apenas uma tag).

[syl]

@SumOne

Os grupos de tags são tão ágeis quanto as tags?

Desculpe, não sei.

@SumOne

Ainda é uma boa ideia usar essa solução alternativa, criando um grupo para cada tag?

Parece que me lembro que a API permite, em uma única operação, criar várias tags em um único grupo.

[SumOne]

Obrigado. Sim, isso nos permite criar várias tags no mesmo grupo, mas apenas na criação. Podemos atualizar, mas para isso preciso recuperar o grupo, adicionar as tags e depois enviá-lo de volta. Não há um endpoint para adicionar.

Sobre a segunda ideia que você sugeriu, aquela com o endpoint /tags/upload.json.

Encontrei o botão de upload da interface. Criei um CSV que funciona bem lá. Mas não consigo fazê-lo funcionar no Postman ou em Golang (se você estiver familiarizado, usei csv.NewWriter).

Alguma ideia?

[syl]

@SumOne

Mas não consigo fazê-lo funcionar no Postman ou em Golang.
Alguma ideia?

Desculpe, não sei como criar e enviar um blob com essas ferramentas.

[SumOne]

Descobri como fazer.

Se alguém precisar, me chame. Não estou postando aqui porque é longo e provavelmente irrelevante para 99,99% da comunidade.