all{componentName} method for each component type

[KhudaDad414]

Reason/Context

In our Optimizer, the current design requires us to manually locate each component in a central location. This approach essentially replicates what the parser does when navigating between AsyncAPI versions, indicating that it's far from ideal.

However, the parser is capable of providing all the components the Optimizer requires for its logic without necessitating duplication. Certain existing functions significantly aid this process, and we could further streamline it by introducing additional functions for different component types.

Description

In order to improve this situation without making drastic changes, I propose that we introduce an all{componentName} function for every component that can be declared in the components section.

The Document object of the parser already supports the following methods:

allServers()
allChannels()
allOperations()
allMessages()
allSchemas()

To optimize our process, we need to add the following methods:

allSecuritySchemes()
allServerVariables()
allParameters()
allCorrelationIds()
allReplies()
allReplyAddresses()
allTags()
allOperationTraits()
allMessageTraits()
allServerBindings()
allChannelBindings()
allOperationBindings()
allMessageBindings()

These enhancements would ensure we effectively leverage the parser's capabilities by Optimizer and maybe other tools as well.

[KhudaDad414]

cc: @jonaslagoni @smoya

[github-actions]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity 😴

It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation.

There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model.

Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here.

Thank you for your patience ❤️

[smoya]

Transferred this issue to the parser-api repository as this is a decision on the API side.

BTW, I don't see a problem adding those new methods to the root of the document.
The process will be the following:

1. Create a PR in this repository with the changes on the API.
2. Create a PR in the Parser-JS repository applying such changes.

@KhudaDad414 are you ok taking this?

cc @jonaslagoni

[KhudaDad414]

Sure. I am going to open the PRs.

[smoya]

Thinking if it would make sense to additionally add mirror methods to those new all{componentName} but returning the in-use objects. For example, adding as well the mirror method of allServerBindings called serverBindings that returns the bindings for the servers in use (not in components).

Not pretty sure if it has a use case, just trying to be consistent, but no strong feelings. WDYT @jonaslagoni ?

[jonaslagoni]

Use-case over everything IMO, cause you are forcing more work across parsers (in the future), so it has to have reason.

[KhudaDad414]

@smoya PRs are ready for review: asyncapi/parser-js#969, #111 🙇

[smoya]

allServerBindings

Agree. cc @KhudaDad414

[KhudaDad414]

Thinking if it would make sense to additionally add mirror methods to those new all{componentName} but returning the in-use objects...

It would make sense to have those methods for all of the components in the root. we already have operations(), channels(), servers() even messages() why not others? 🤷 it would definitely add consistency for all components:

allMessages() ---> used and unused components.
messages() ---> used messages.

regarding the use case, it would be useful at least for us(in Optimizer). we are currently grouping them based on their jsonpath. so I am sold.

Agree. cc @KhudaDad414

should I go ahead and add them as well?