1775 lines
53 KiB
Markdown
1775 lines
53 KiB
Markdown
# API Documentation Quality & Process Guide
|
|
|
|
A comprehensive reference for developers and User Assistance (UA) teams creating and reviewing SAP API documentation.
|
|
|
|
**Based on**: SAP API Style Guide v2021.01
|
|
**Last Updated**: 2025-11-21
|
|
|
|
**Attribution**: Content derived from [SAP API Style Guide](https://github.com/SAP-docs/api-style-guide) (Licensed under [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/))
|
|
|
|
**Changes**: Consolidated from multiple source files, reorganized for progressive disclosure, added examples and templates.
|
|
|
|
**Audience**: Developers, Technical Writers, Product Managers, UA Developers
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Table of Contents
|
|
|
|
1. [API Documentation Processes Overview](#api-documentation-processes-overview)
|
|
2. [API Quality Checklist](#api-quality-checklist)
|
|
3. [API Review Process](#api-review-process)
|
|
4. [Guidelines for Development Teams](#guidelines-for-development-teams)
|
|
5. [Best Practices](#best-practices)
|
|
6. [Process Flowcharts](#process-flowcharts)
|
|
7. [Review Checklists & Templates](#review-checklists--templates)
|
|
8. [Common Review Findings](#common-review-findings)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## API Documentation Processes Overview
|
|
|
|
### Purpose
|
|
|
|
API documentation processes ensure that SAP APIs can be consumed quickly and easily. This requires:
|
|
- **Quality documentation** that clearly explains API purpose and usage
|
|
- **Consistent review workflows** involving developers and UA professionals
|
|
- **Early identification** of documentation issues before APIs reach consumers
|
|
- **Standardized approaches** across all SAP API implementations
|
|
|
|
### Core Principle
|
|
|
|
> "To ensure that an API can be consumed quickly and easily, it's important to have all texts checked and reviewed."
|
|
|
|
### Three Key Components
|
|
|
|
#### 1. **API Review Process**
|
|
Structured workflow for reviewing all API documentation materials through developer-UA collaboration.
|
|
|
|
#### 2. **API Quality Checklist**
|
|
Verification tool to confirm documentation meets quality standards before publication.
|
|
|
|
#### 3. **Development Team Guidelines**
|
|
Best practices for integrating API review into development workflows.
|
|
|
|
### Important Context
|
|
|
|
**Note on Existing APIs**: Many existing APIs on SAP API Business Hub predate the API Style Guide and may not fully adhere to current standards. When creating new APIs, follow the style guide recommendations rather than using older examples as templates.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## API Quality Checklist
|
|
|
|
### Overview
|
|
|
|
The quality checklist helps developers and technical writers ensure API reference documentation is production-ready. Recommendation: Have different reviewers examine different sections to catch more issues.
|
|
|
|
### Auto-Generated API Documentation
|
|
|
|
#### 1. Creating/Editing API Specification Files
|
|
|
|
**Documentation Comments**:
|
|
- [ ] Use appropriate documentation tags for your API type
|
|
- REST/OData: OpenAPI/Swagger conventions
|
|
- Java: Javadoc tags
|
|
- JavaScript: JSDoc tags
|
|
- MS.NET: XML documentation tags
|
|
- C/C++: Doxygen tags
|
|
- [ ] Include documentation comments throughout the specification
|
|
- [ ] Place comments in correct location for your API type
|
|
|
|
**Parameter Documentation**:
|
|
- [ ] Are the descriptions for each parameter clear and precise?
|
|
- [ ] Do descriptions accurately reflect parameter behavior?
|
|
- [ ] Are parameter types correctly specified?
|
|
- [ ] Are required vs. optional parameters clearly marked?
|
|
|
|
**Complex Concept Examples**:
|
|
- [ ] Use examples to illustrate complex concepts
|
|
- [ ] Include sample code/payloads for non-obvious behavior
|
|
- [ ] Verify examples are accurate and complete
|
|
- [ ] Test code examples run without errors
|
|
|
|
**Security & Privacy**:
|
|
- [ ] Verify API doesn't include sensitive or internal information
|
|
- [ ] Avoid including:
|
|
- Sample user IDs or credentials
|
|
- Server addresses or hostnames
|
|
- Internal payload examples
|
|
- Confidential data structures
|
|
- Personal information (emails, addresses)
|
|
|
|
#### 2. Reviewing API Specification Files
|
|
|
|
**Consistency Verification**:
|
|
- [ ] Ensure descriptions of similar elements are consistent in style
|
|
- [ ] Verify detail levels match across comparable API elements
|
|
- [ ] Check terminology is consistent throughout
|
|
- [ ] Confirm naming patterns follow conventions
|
|
|
|
**Tag Organization**:
|
|
- [ ] Are tags grouped logically?
|
|
- [ ] Are tags ordered consistently across similar elements?
|
|
- [ ] Is tag ordering aligned with style guide recommendations?
|
|
- [ ] No redundant or conflicting tags?
|
|
|
|
**UA Developer Review**:
|
|
- [ ] Has a UA developer reviewed all API names?
|
|
- [ ] Has a UA developer reviewed all descriptions?
|
|
- [ ] Has feedback been documented and tracked?
|
|
- [ ] Are revisions complete and verified?
|
|
|
|
**Formatting & Completeness**:
|
|
- [ ] Is all formatting correct and complete?
|
|
- [ ] Are required fields populated?
|
|
- [ ] Are optional fields appropriately used?
|
|
- [ ] No incomplete or placeholder text remains?
|
|
|
|
**Compilation & Generation**:
|
|
- [ ] Does documentation compile completely?
|
|
- [ ] Build process completes without errors?
|
|
- [ ] No warnings or deprecation notices?
|
|
- [ ] Generated output is valid and well-formed?
|
|
|
|
**Link Verification**:
|
|
- [ ] Do all links work correctly?
|
|
- [ ] Links point to current, active resources?
|
|
- [ ] Cross-references resolve properly?
|
|
- [ ] No dead links or redirects?
|
|
|
|
**Output Quality**:
|
|
- [ ] Does output look as expected?
|
|
- [ ] Does layout render correctly?
|
|
- [ ] Are all images/diagrams displaying?
|
|
- [ ] Is the output accessible on all target platforms?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Manually Written API Documentation
|
|
|
|
#### Completeness Checklist
|
|
|
|
**API Element Documentation**:
|
|
- [ ] Each API element contains appropriate descriptions
|
|
- [ ] Each element includes required metadata tags
|
|
- [ ] All required fields are populated
|
|
- [ ] Optional fields included where beneficial
|
|
|
|
**Description Quality**:
|
|
- [ ] Descriptions clearly explain purpose
|
|
- [ ] Descriptions clarify functionality
|
|
- [ ] Descriptions guide correct usage
|
|
- [ ] Descriptions avoid implementation details
|
|
|
|
**Examples & References**:
|
|
- [ ] Examples included where functionality is non-obvious
|
|
- [ ] Cross-references provided to related elements
|
|
- [ ] References are accurate and helpful
|
|
- [ ] Examples demonstrate typical usage patterns
|
|
|
|
#### Correctness & Consistency Checklist
|
|
|
|
**UA Developer Review**:
|
|
- [ ] UA Developer reviewed API names for clarity
|
|
- [ ] UA Developer reviewed descriptions for accuracy
|
|
- [ ] Feedback has been documented
|
|
- [ ] Revisions implemented and verified
|
|
|
|
**Scope & Consistency**:
|
|
- [ ] Scope of descriptions is consistent across similar elements
|
|
- [ ] Quantity of detail is uniform for comparable items
|
|
- [ ] Style and tone match throughout documentation
|
|
- [ ] Terminology is consistent (no synonyms or ambiguity)
|
|
|
|
**Tag Grouping & Ordering**:
|
|
- [ ] Documentation tags are grouped logically
|
|
- [ ] Tag ordering is consistent across similar elements
|
|
- [ ] Tag order matches style guide recommendations
|
|
- [ ] No redundant or conflicting tags present
|
|
|
|
**Formatting**:
|
|
- [ ] HTML formatting used correctly throughout
|
|
- [ ] No formatting inconsistencies or errors
|
|
- [ ] Special characters handled properly
|
|
- [ ] Code blocks formatted with syntax highlighting
|
|
|
|
#### Publication Verification Checklist
|
|
|
|
**Link Functionality**:
|
|
- [ ] All links direct to intended pages
|
|
- [ ] Links are active and current
|
|
- [ ] No broken or circular references
|
|
- [ ] Cross-references resolve correctly
|
|
|
|
**Output Quality**:
|
|
- [ ] Generated output functions as expected
|
|
- [ ] Output appears exactly as intended
|
|
- [ ] Navigation works correctly
|
|
- [ ] All dynamic elements function properly
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## API Review Process
|
|
|
|
### Core Principle
|
|
|
|
> "Review texts as early as possible in the development cycle"
|
|
|
|
**Why Early Review Matters**:
|
|
- Changes early in development are less costly
|
|
- Issues caught early prevent late surprises
|
|
- Teams can iterate more efficiently
|
|
- Quality improves with early feedback
|
|
|
|
### Key Timing Requirements
|
|
|
|
| Phase | Timing | Rationale |
|
|
|-------|--------|-----------|
|
|
| **Early Review** | As early as possible in development | Identify issues before significant work invested |
|
|
| **Language Review** | All consumer-facing texts | Ensure clarity and quality |
|
|
| **Final Review** | Before any consumers use API | Prevent bad experiences with first users |
|
|
| **Documentation Generation** | After code/spec review | Accurate representation of implementation |
|
|
|
|
### Eight Review Areas
|
|
|
|
#### 1. API Names and Descriptions
|
|
|
|
**What Gets Reviewed**:
|
|
- Package/API product names
|
|
- Resource and endpoint names
|
|
- Method/operation names
|
|
- Parameter names
|
|
- Response type names
|
|
|
|
**Review Workflow**:
|
|
1. **Developers** propose names and descriptions
|
|
2. **Product Owners** validate alignment with product vision
|
|
3. **UA Developers** review for:
|
|
- Clarity and uniqueness
|
|
- Consistency with other APIs
|
|
- Correct terminology
|
|
- Absence of jargon or abbreviations
|
|
4. **Final Approval** after all feedback incorporated
|
|
|
|
**Review Questions**:
|
|
- Is the name clear without additional context?
|
|
- Does the name accurately reflect what the API does?
|
|
- Is the name consistent with similar APIs?
|
|
- Could any term be ambiguous or confusing?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
#### 2. Code Comments (Auto-Generated Documentation)
|
|
|
|
**What Gets Reviewed**:
|
|
- Javadoc comments in Java code
|
|
- JSDoc comments in JavaScript
|
|
- XML documentation comments in .NET
|
|
- Doxygen comments in C/C++
|
|
- OpenAPI descriptions in YAML/JSON specs
|
|
|
|
**Review Workflow**:
|
|
1. **Developers** write documentation comments in source code
|
|
2. **Developers** verify comments are grammatically correct
|
|
3. **UA Professionals** review comments for:
|
|
- Technical accuracy
|
|
- Clarity and usability
|
|
- Completeness
|
|
- Consistency with style guide
|
|
4. **Developers** implement feedback
|
|
5. **UA Professionals** verify revisions
|
|
|
|
**Review Questions**:
|
|
- Are all parameters documented?
|
|
- Are all return values described?
|
|
- Are exceptions/errors documented?
|
|
- Is the description clear to API consumers?
|
|
- Does the example code actually work?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
#### 3. Manually Written API Documentation
|
|
|
|
**What Gets Reviewed**:
|
|
- REST API method documentation
|
|
- OData resource documentation
|
|
- Developer guides
|
|
- Integration guides
|
|
- API overview documents
|
|
|
|
**Review Workflow**:
|
|
1. **Developers** prepare API specifications
|
|
2. **UA Developers** write documentation using templates
|
|
3. **UA Developers** work with product teams on content accuracy
|
|
4. **Developers** review for technical accuracy
|
|
5. **UA Developers** perform final quality check
|
|
6. **Both Teams** validate generated output
|
|
|
|
See [Manually Written REST and OData API Documentation Reference](manual-templates-guide.md) for detailed template guidance.
|
|
|
|
**Review Questions**:
|
|
- Is all required information included?
|
|
- Are procedures accurate and complete?
|
|
- Is the structure logical and easy to follow?
|
|
- Are examples correct and testable?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
#### 4. Code Examples
|
|
|
|
**What Gets Reviewed**:
|
|
- Code snippets embedded in documentation
|
|
- Sample applications
|
|
- Example scripts
|
|
- Demo code
|
|
- Test code samples
|
|
|
|
**Review Requirements**:
|
|
- Code snippets **must execute correctly** in development/test environments
|
|
- Examples must demonstrate realistic usage patterns
|
|
- Code must be secure (no hardcoded credentials)
|
|
- Examples must be complete enough to run
|
|
|
|
**Testing Approach**:
|
|
- Sample files and demo applications are typically tested as part of regular development processes
|
|
- Code review procedures may differ from documentation review
|
|
- Verification focuses on functional correctness, not style
|
|
|
|
**Review Questions**:
|
|
- Does the code example actually run?
|
|
- Does it demonstrate the intended API usage?
|
|
- Is all necessary setup code included?
|
|
- Are there potential security issues?
|
|
- Could the example mislead developers?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
#### 5. Error Messages
|
|
|
|
**What Gets Reviewed**:
|
|
- Error descriptions returned by APIs
|
|
- Exception messages
|
|
- HTTP status code descriptions
|
|
- Validation failure messages
|
|
- Error codes and their meanings
|
|
|
|
**Why Error Messages Matter**:
|
|
> "Reviewing error messages is a major part of an API review"
|
|
|
|
Error messages are critical consumer touchpoints that appear in:
|
|
- Application error logs
|
|
- Debugger output
|
|
- User interface alerts
|
|
- API response bodies
|
|
|
|
**Review Approach**:
|
|
- Apply **people-centric approach** to enhance customer satisfaction
|
|
- Make error messages helpful, not cryptic
|
|
- Provide guidance on resolution when possible
|
|
- Maintain consistent terminology
|
|
|
|
**Review Questions**:
|
|
- Is the error message clear and actionable?
|
|
- Does it explain what went wrong?
|
|
- Does it suggest how to fix the problem?
|
|
- Is the terminology consistent with other error messages?
|
|
- Is the message free of jargon?
|
|
|
|
**Good vs. Poor Error Messages**:
|
|
|
|
| Poor | Good |
|
|
|------|------|
|
|
| "Invalid request" | "Email address format is invalid. Use format: name@example.com" |
|
|
| "Error 400" | "Required field 'firstName' is missing from request body" |
|
|
| "Unauthorized" | "API key is expired. Generate a new key from Developer Dashboard" |
|
|
| "Not found" | "Product with ID 12345 doesn't exist in catalog" |
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
#### 6. Developer Guides
|
|
|
|
**What Gets Reviewed**:
|
|
- Getting started guides
|
|
- Integration tutorials
|
|
- Conceptual explanations
|
|
- Usage scenarios
|
|
- Best practices documentation
|
|
|
|
**Review Workflow**:
|
|
1. **Developers** outline key scenarios and tasks
|
|
2. **UA Developers** create guides using template structures
|
|
3. **Subject matter experts** verify technical accuracy
|
|
4. **Beta testers** validate procedures
|
|
5. **Final review** for clarity and completeness
|
|
|
|
**Review Questions**:
|
|
- Does the guide address customer needs?
|
|
- Are procedures accurate and complete?
|
|
- Is there sufficient explanation for novice users?
|
|
- Are code samples correct and runnable?
|
|
- Is the structure logical and easy to follow?
|
|
|
|
See [Developer or Service Guides Reference](developer-guides.md) for complete guide structure guidelines.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
#### 7. Package Names and Descriptions (SAP API Business Hub)
|
|
|
|
**What Gets Reviewed**:
|
|
- Package titles (grouping of related APIs)
|
|
- Package short descriptions (marketing text)
|
|
- Package overview descriptions
|
|
- Feature lists
|
|
|
|
**Why Packages Matter**:
|
|
- Packages represent product areas on SAP API Business Hub
|
|
- First impression for API consumers
|
|
- Impact API discoverability and adoption
|
|
|
|
**Review Workflow**:
|
|
1. **Product Teams** define package scope and purpose
|
|
2. **Marketing/UA** create package descriptions
|
|
3. **Product Owners** verify descriptions reflect product correctly
|
|
4. **UA Developers** review for:
|
|
- Clarity and appeal
|
|
- Accurate representation of included APIs
|
|
- Consistency with related packages
|
|
5. **Final approval** before publishing
|
|
|
|
**Review Questions**:
|
|
- Is the purpose of the package clear?
|
|
- Do the descriptions accurately describe included APIs?
|
|
- Is it clear who should use this API package?
|
|
- Is the description compelling to potential users?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
#### 8. OpenAPI Specification (YAML) Files
|
|
|
|
**What Gets Reviewed**:
|
|
- Info object (title, version, description)
|
|
- Path items and operations
|
|
- Parameter descriptions
|
|
- Response descriptions
|
|
- Schema/component descriptions
|
|
- Security scheme descriptions
|
|
- External documentation references
|
|
|
|
**Review Workflow**:
|
|
1. **Developers** create or generate OpenAPI spec
|
|
2. **Developers** add/verify description fields
|
|
3. **UA Developers** review spec for:
|
|
- Complete descriptions throughout
|
|
- Consistent terminology
|
|
- Accurate information
|
|
- Proper formatting
|
|
4. **Both teams** validate rendered output
|
|
5. **Final verification** before publishing to API Hub
|
|
|
|
**Review Questions**:
|
|
- Are all info fields complete?
|
|
- Are all operations described?
|
|
- Are all parameters documented?
|
|
- Are all response codes explained?
|
|
- Is the spec valid and well-formed?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Review Timing & Collaboration
|
|
|
|
#### Early Submission Critical
|
|
|
|
> "Submit APIs for review as early as possible; late submissions put the review at risk"
|
|
|
|
**Why Early Submission Matters**:
|
|
- Allows adequate review time
|
|
- Enables multiple review iterations
|
|
- Prevents last-minute surprises
|
|
- Improves overall quality
|
|
|
|
**Timing Recommendations**:
|
|
- **Ideal**: Review at API design phase, before implementation
|
|
- **Acceptable**: Review during active development
|
|
- **Risky**: Review only after development complete
|
|
- **Critical Failure**: Review after consumer adoption begins
|
|
|
|
#### Developer-UA Collaboration Model
|
|
|
|
**Developers Responsibility**:
|
|
- Propose clear names and descriptions
|
|
- Write accurate documentation comments
|
|
- Provide API specifications
|
|
- Test code examples thoroughly
|
|
- Review UA feedback promptly
|
|
- Implement feedback completely
|
|
|
|
**UA Responsibility**:
|
|
- Review for clarity and consistency
|
|
- Ensure language is grammatically correct
|
|
- Verify descriptions match consumer needs
|
|
- Check compliance with style guide
|
|
- Test rendered output
|
|
- Provide constructive feedback
|
|
|
|
**Communication**:
|
|
- Regular check-ins during development
|
|
- Clear feedback with specific examples
|
|
- Timely responses to questions
|
|
- Documentation of decisions and changes
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Guidelines for Development Teams
|
|
|
|
### Best Practices Overview
|
|
|
|
Development teams should follow these guidelines to achieve superior API quality:
|
|
|
|
1. **Prepare API specifications** before implementation begins
|
|
2. **Plan API reviews** in the same development cycle as API implementation
|
|
3. **Track review activities** in development backlog for transparency
|
|
4. **Submit early** for review to enable adequate assessment
|
|
5. **Implement feedback completely** to gain full review benefits
|
|
6. **Implement before consumer use** to prevent bad experiences
|
|
7. **Perform quality checks** using the API Quality Checklist
|
|
|
|
### 1. Prepare API Specifications
|
|
|
|
**Timing**: Before or early during development
|
|
|
|
**What to Include**:
|
|
- API purpose and use cases
|
|
- Resource/endpoint definitions
|
|
- Parameter specifications
|
|
- Response structures
|
|
- Error conditions
|
|
- Security requirements
|
|
- Integration points
|
|
|
|
**Why It Matters**:
|
|
- Establishes clear expectations
|
|
- Enables early UA review
|
|
- Prevents misalignment with consumers
|
|
- Facilitates documentation planning
|
|
|
|
**Recommendations**:
|
|
- Create formal specification document
|
|
- Share with product team for feedback
|
|
- Incorporate use cases and requirements
|
|
- Include examples and scenarios
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 2. Plan API Reviews in Development Cycle
|
|
|
|
**Integration into Workflow**:
|
|
```
|
|
Specification → Design Review → Development → Code Review →
|
|
Documentation Review → Testing → Consumer Pilot → Production
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Key Principle**:
|
|
> "Plan API reviews in the same development cycle as the API implementation"
|
|
|
|
**Timing**:
|
|
- Start documentation planning early (not after coding)
|
|
- Schedule UA review before or during development
|
|
- Allocate time for iteration and revision
|
|
- Plan for multiple review rounds if needed
|
|
|
|
**Planning Questions**:
|
|
- When will API specs be ready for review?
|
|
- Who will review (which UA developers)?
|
|
- How many review iterations are needed?
|
|
- What's the timeline for feedback?
|
|
- When must implementation be complete?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 3. Include API Reviews in Backlog
|
|
|
|
**Transparency & Tracking**:
|
|
```
|
|
Development Backlog:
|
|
├─ Feature Development
|
|
│ ├─ API Implementation: 5 days
|
|
│ ├─ UA Documentation Review: 3 days
|
|
│ ├─ Feedback Implementation: 2 days
|
|
│ └─ Final Validation: 1 day
|
|
├─ Code Review & Testing
|
|
└─ Production Deployment
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Why Include in Backlog**:
|
|
- Makes review process visible to all stakeholders
|
|
- Allows proper resource planning
|
|
- Enables accurate timeline estimation
|
|
- Prevents documentation from being overlooked
|
|
- Tracks completion and dependencies
|
|
|
|
**Backlog Item Details**:
|
|
- Clear acceptance criteria
|
|
- Resource assignments (UA developer)
|
|
- Timeline estimates
|
|
- Dependency tracking
|
|
- Status updates
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 4. Submit APIs Early for Review
|
|
|
|
**The Early Review Advantage**:
|
|
|
|
| Submission Timing | Review Outcome | Quality Impact |
|
|
|-------------------|---|---|
|
|
| **Design Phase** | Design feedback incorporated | Highest quality |
|
|
| **Active Development** | Rapid iteration possible | High quality |
|
|
| **Pre-Release** | Limited time for revision | Medium quality |
|
|
| **Post-Release** | Consumer confusion | Low quality |
|
|
|
|
**What "Early" Means**:
|
|
- As soon as specifications are stable
|
|
- Before development is fully complete
|
|
- Definitely before any consumer access
|
|
- With adequate time for multiple iterations
|
|
|
|
**Early Submission Checklist**:
|
|
- [ ] API specification document exists
|
|
- [ ] Requirements are clearly defined
|
|
- [ ] Use cases documented
|
|
- [ ] Product team alignment achieved
|
|
- [ ] Schedule allows time for feedback
|
|
|
|
**Communication**:
|
|
- Notify UA team of upcoming API
|
|
- Schedule preliminary review meeting
|
|
- Discuss timeline and expectations
|
|
- Identify potential issues early
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 5. Implement Feedback Completely
|
|
|
|
**Critical Success Factor**:
|
|
> "Implement the review feedback in full, otherwise you lose part of its benefits"
|
|
|
|
**Why Complete Implementation Matters**:
|
|
- Partial implementation wastes reviewer time
|
|
- Inconsistent implementation confuses consumers
|
|
- Undermines value of review process
|
|
- Leads to repeated issues in future APIs
|
|
|
|
**Implementation Process**:
|
|
1. **Document feedback** in tracked format
|
|
2. **Categorize issues** by priority
|
|
3. **Assign responsibility** to team members
|
|
4. **Plan implementation** with timeline
|
|
5. **Execute changes** completely
|
|
6. **Verify** against original feedback
|
|
7. **Report completion** to UA team
|
|
|
|
**Handling Disagreements**:
|
|
- Discuss concerns with UA reviewer
|
|
- Present rationale for alternative approach
|
|
- Seek consensus or escalate if needed
|
|
- Document final decision and reasoning
|
|
|
|
**Examples**:
|
|
|
|
| Feedback | Partial Implementation | Complete Implementation |
|
|
|----------|---|---|
|
|
| "Description needs clarity" | Fix one of three unclear points | Fix all descriptions, verify all are clear |
|
|
| "API naming inconsistent" | Rename some APIs | Rename all affected APIs, verify consistency |
|
|
| "Examples have errors" | Fix obvious errors | Test all examples, fix all issues |
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 6. Implement Before Consumer Use
|
|
|
|
**Critical Timing**:
|
|
> "Implement the review before APIs are used by any consumers (internal and external)"
|
|
|
|
**Why This Matters**:
|
|
- First impressions are critical
|
|
- Early adopters set tone for API adoption
|
|
- Documentation bugs damage credibility
|
|
- Bad examples create bad implementations
|
|
|
|
**Consumer Scope**:
|
|
- External API consumers
|
|
- Internal teams using API
|
|
- Beta testers and pilot programs
|
|
- Demo users and evaluators
|
|
|
|
**Validation Approach**:
|
|
1. Complete all feedback implementation
|
|
2. Test thoroughly in staging environment
|
|
3. Perform final quality check (using checklist)
|
|
4. Release to limited audience first (internal pilot)
|
|
5. Gather feedback from initial users
|
|
6. Make any final adjustments
|
|
7. Release to general audience
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 7. Perform Quality Checks
|
|
|
|
**Final Verification Step**:
|
|
|
|
Before releasing any API, use the **API Quality Checklist** to verify:
|
|
- ✅ All documentation tags present
|
|
- ✅ Descriptions are clear and complete
|
|
- ✅ Examples are accurate and work correctly
|
|
- ✅ Naming is consistent and follows conventions
|
|
- ✅ Security and privacy requirements met
|
|
- ✅ Links and cross-references functional
|
|
- ✅ Output renders correctly
|
|
- ✅ UA review completed and feedback implemented
|
|
|
|
**Quality Check Responsibility**:
|
|
- **Primary**: Developers performing final self-check
|
|
- **Secondary**: UA team performing verification
|
|
- **Final**: Joint sign-off before release
|
|
|
|
**Escalation**:
|
|
If quality check fails:
|
|
1. Identify specific issues
|
|
2. Prioritize by severity
|
|
3. Assign to team members
|
|
4. Re-test changes
|
|
5. Repeat quality check until passing
|
|
6. Document resolution
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Best Practices
|
|
|
|
### For Developers
|
|
|
|
#### 1. Write Clear API Names
|
|
```
|
|
✅ GOOD: "createCustomer", "getOrderHistory", "updateInventory"
|
|
❌ BAD: "create", "get", "handleOrderDataRequest"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### 2. Write Precise Parameter Descriptions
|
|
```
|
|
✅ GOOD: "Email address of customer in format name@example.com"
|
|
❌ BAD: "Customer email"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### 3. Include Realistic Examples
|
|
```
|
|
✅ GOOD: Example includes actual expected inputs/outputs
|
|
❌ BAD: Placeholder example or incorrect syntax
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### 4. Implement All Feedback
|
|
```
|
|
✅ GOOD: Every feedback item addressed with specific changes
|
|
❌ BAD: Ignore feedback or implement partially
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### 5. Test Code Examples
|
|
```
|
|
✅ GOOD: Every code example runs successfully
|
|
❌ BAD: Examples contain errors or pseudo-code
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### For UA/Technical Writers
|
|
|
|
#### 1. Review Early and Often
|
|
```
|
|
✅ GOOD: Multiple review touchpoints during development
|
|
❌ BAD: Single review at end of project
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### 2. Focus on Clarity
|
|
```
|
|
✅ GOOD: Feedback includes specific clarity improvements
|
|
❌ BAD: Generic comments like "make it clearer"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### 3. Provide Examples
|
|
```
|
|
✅ GOOD: Show good and bad examples in feedback
|
|
❌ BAD: Point out problems without solutions
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### 4. Document Decisions
|
|
```
|
|
✅ GOOD: Track all feedback and how it was addressed
|
|
❌ BAD: Informal discussions with no record
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### 5. Verify Implementation
|
|
```
|
|
✅ GOOD: Re-review revised documentation
|
|
❌ BAD: Assume feedback was implemented correctly
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### For Product Managers
|
|
|
|
#### 1. Allocate Time for Documentation
|
|
```
|
|
✅ GOOD: Documentation review scheduled in sprint planning
|
|
❌ BAD: Documentation treated as afterthought
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### 2. Include in Acceptance Criteria
|
|
```
|
|
✅ GOOD: API feature not "done" until documentation reviewed
|
|
❌ BAD: Documentation quality not tracked in definition of done
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### 3. Involve UA from Start
|
|
```
|
|
✅ GOOD: UA team consulted during API design
|
|
❌ BAD: UA team involved only at end
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### 4. Prioritize Based on Impact
|
|
```
|
|
✅ GOOD: Public-facing APIs get more review resources
|
|
❌ BAD: All APIs treated equally regardless of visibility
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
#### 5. Measure Quality Outcomes
|
|
```
|
|
✅ GOOD: Track documentation-related support tickets
|
|
❌ BAD: No metrics on documentation effectiveness
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Process Flowcharts
|
|
|
|
### Overall API Documentation Process
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
START: New API Development
|
|
│
|
|
├─→ Phase 1: Specification & Planning
|
|
│ ├─ Create API specification
|
|
│ ├─ Define use cases
|
|
│ ├─ Plan documentation approach
|
|
│ └─ Schedule UA review
|
|
│
|
|
├─→ Phase 2: Development & Documentation
|
|
│ ├─ Develop API implementation
|
|
│ ├─ Write documentation comments
|
|
│ ├─ Create code examples
|
|
│ └─ Early submission to UA
|
|
│
|
|
├─→ Phase 3: UA Review & Feedback
|
|
│ ├─ UA reviews names and descriptions
|
|
│ ├─ UA reviews code comments
|
|
│ ├─ UA reviews examples
|
|
│ ├─ UA provides detailed feedback
|
|
│ └─ Teams discuss and align
|
|
│
|
|
├─→ Phase 4: Implementation & Revision
|
|
│ ├─ Implement all feedback
|
|
│ ├─ Revise documentation
|
|
│ ├─ Test revised examples
|
|
│ └─ Re-submit if major changes
|
|
│
|
|
├─→ Phase 5: Quality Check & Validation
|
|
│ ├─ Run API Quality Checklist
|
|
│ ├─ Verify all items checked
|
|
│ ├─ Resolve any issues
|
|
│ └─ Obtain final sign-off
|
|
│
|
|
├─→ Phase 6: Publication & Deployment
|
|
│ ├─ Deploy to staging
|
|
│ ├─ Internal pilot with early adopters
|
|
│ ├─ Gather initial feedback
|
|
│ ├─ Make final adjustments if needed
|
|
│ └─ Deploy to production
|
|
│
|
|
└─→ END: API Published & Available
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Developer Submission Workflow
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Developer: Ready to Submit for Review
|
|
│
|
|
├─ Check: Documentation complete?
|
|
│ └─ NO: Complete documentation → return
|
|
│
|
|
├─ Check: Code examples tested?
|
|
│ └─ NO: Test and fix → return
|
|
│
|
|
├─ Check: API names reviewed internally?
|
|
│ └─ NO: Review and refine → return
|
|
│
|
|
├─→ Submit to UA Team
|
|
│ │
|
|
│ ├─ UA: Initial review
|
|
│ │ ├─ Review names & descriptions
|
|
│ │ ├─ Review code comments
|
|
│ │ ├─ Review examples
|
|
│ │ └─ Compile feedback
|
|
│ │
|
|
│ ├─ UA: Provide Feedback
|
|
│ │ ├─ High priority items (blocking)
|
|
│ │ ├─ Medium priority items (important)
|
|
│ │ └─ Low priority items (nice to have)
|
|
│ │
|
|
│ └─→ Developer: Implement Feedback
|
|
│ ├─ Address high priority items first
|
|
│ ├─ Implement all feedback items
|
|
│ ├─ Test changes thoroughly
|
|
│ ├─ Document what was changed
|
|
│ └─ Re-submit if significant changes
|
|
│
|
|
└─→ Approval & Quality Check
|
|
├─ Final review of revisions
|
|
├─ Quality checklist validation
|
|
└─ Sign-off for publication
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### UA Review Workflow
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
UA Team Receives Submission
|
|
│
|
|
├─→ Initial Triage
|
|
│ ├─ Assign to reviewer
|
|
│ ├─ Schedule review time
|
|
│ ├─ Request clarification if needed
|
|
│ └─ Set expectations for timeline
|
|
│
|
|
├─→ Detailed Review Phase
|
|
│ ├─ Review API names & descriptions
|
|
│ │ └─ Check clarity, consistency, completeness
|
|
│ │
|
|
│ ├─ Review code comments
|
|
│ │ └─ Check documentation tags, accuracy
|
|
│ │
|
|
│ ├─ Review code examples
|
|
│ │ └─ Test execution, accuracy
|
|
│ │
|
|
│ ├─ Review error messages
|
|
│ │ └─ Check clarity, helpfulness
|
|
│ │
|
|
│ └─ Review any supporting documentation
|
|
│ └─ Check structure, completeness
|
|
│
|
|
├─→ Compile Feedback
|
|
│ ├─ Organize by area reviewed
|
|
│ ├─ Prioritize findings
|
|
│ ├─ Prepare examples
|
|
│ └─ Schedule feedback discussion
|
|
│
|
|
├─→ Present Feedback to Developer
|
|
│ ├─ Explain findings and rationale
|
|
│ ├─ Discuss alternative approaches
|
|
│ ├─ Clarify expectations
|
|
│ └─ Establish implementation timeline
|
|
│
|
|
└─→ Track Implementation
|
|
├─ Monitor feedback completion
|
|
├─ Answer developer questions
|
|
├─ Verify revisions
|
|
└─ Sign-off when complete
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Quality Checklist Review Workflow
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Quality Checklist Review
|
|
│
|
|
├─→ Auto-Generated Documentation Path
|
|
│ │
|
|
│ ├─ Creating/Editing Specification
|
|
│ │ ├─ Tags appropriate? ──→ NO: Add/fix tags
|
|
│ │ ├─ Comments complete? ──→ NO: Add comments
|
|
│ │ ├─ Descriptions clear? ──→ NO: Improve
|
|
│ │ ├─ Examples included? ──→ NO: Add examples
|
|
│ │ └─ No sensitive data? ──→ NO: Remove
|
|
│ │
|
|
│ └─ Reviewing Specification
|
|
│ ├─ Consistent descriptions? ──→ NO: Unify
|
|
│ ├─ Tags grouped/ordered? ──→ NO: Reorganize
|
|
│ ├─ UA reviewed names/descriptions? ──→ NO: Get review
|
|
│ ├─ Formatting correct? ──→ NO: Fix formatting
|
|
│ ├─ Compiles without errors? ──→ NO: Fix errors
|
|
│ ├─ All links work? ──→ NO: Fix links
|
|
│ └─ Output looks expected? ──→ NO: Adjust
|
|
│
|
|
└─→ Manually Written Documentation Path
|
|
│
|
|
├─ Completeness Check
|
|
│ ├─ All elements documented? ──→ NO: Add documentation
|
|
│ ├─ All required tags? ──→ NO: Add tags
|
|
│ ├─ Descriptions clear? ──→ NO: Improve clarity
|
|
│ └─ Examples/references included? ──→ NO: Add content
|
|
│
|
|
├─ Correctness Check
|
|
│ ├─ UA reviewed names/descriptions? ──→ NO: Get review
|
|
│ ├─ Descriptions consistent? ──→ NO: Standardize
|
|
│ ├─ Tags ordered consistently? ──→ NO: Reorder
|
|
│ └─ HTML formatting correct? ──→ NO: Fix formatting
|
|
│
|
|
└─ Publication Check
|
|
├─ All links functional? ──→ NO: Fix links
|
|
└─ Output works as expected? ──→ NO: Fix output
|
|
|
|
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
|
ALL CHECKS PASSED → READY FOR PUBLICATION
|
|
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Review Checklists & Templates
|
|
|
|
### Quick Reference: API Review Decision Tree
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
What are you reviewing?
|
|
│
|
|
├─ API Names & Descriptions?
|
|
│ └─ See: Quick Checklist for Names & Descriptions (below)
|
|
│
|
|
├─ Auto-Generated Documentation (Code Comments)?
|
|
│ └─ See: Quick Checklist for Code Comments (below)
|
|
│
|
|
├─ Manually Written Documentation?
|
|
│ └─ See: Quick Checklist for Manual Documentation (below)
|
|
│
|
|
├─ Code Examples?
|
|
│ └─ See: Quick Checklist for Code Examples (below)
|
|
│
|
|
├─ Error Messages?
|
|
│ └─ See: Quick Checklist for Error Messages (below)
|
|
│
|
|
├─ Developer Guides?
|
|
│ └─ See: Quick Checklist for Developer Guides (below)
|
|
│
|
|
├─ Package Information?
|
|
│ └─ See: Quick Checklist for Package Information (below)
|
|
│
|
|
└─ OpenAPI Specification Files?
|
|
└─ See: Quick Checklist for OpenAPI Files (below)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Quick Checklist: API Names & Descriptions
|
|
|
|
**Use this when**: Reviewing proposed API/resource/method names and their descriptions.
|
|
|
|
**Reviewer**: UA Developer or Product Manager
|
|
|
|
**Time Required**: 30 minutes - 1 hour per API
|
|
|
|
**Checklist**:
|
|
|
|
- [ ] **Name Clarity**: Is the name clear without additional context?
|
|
- [ ] **Name Accuracy**: Does the name accurately reflect what the API does?
|
|
- [ ] **Name Consistency**: Is the name consistent with other similar APIs?
|
|
- [ ] **No Ambiguity**: Could any term be misinterpreted?
|
|
- [ ] **No Jargon**: Are technical terms explained if used?
|
|
- [ ] **Description Accuracy**: Does the description match the implementation?
|
|
- [ ] **Description Completeness**: Does the description explain all key aspects?
|
|
- [ ] **Purpose Clear**: Is the purpose immediately obvious?
|
|
- [ ] **Usage Context**: Is it clear when/why to use this API?
|
|
- [ ] **Related APIs**: Are relationships to other APIs mentioned?
|
|
|
|
**If Issues Found**:
|
|
1. Document specific feedback
|
|
2. Suggest improvements (provide examples)
|
|
3. Discuss with developer
|
|
4. Document final decision
|
|
5. Track implementation
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Quick Checklist: Code Comments (Auto-Generated Documentation)
|
|
|
|
**Use this when**: Reviewing Javadoc, JSDoc, XML doc comments, or Doxygen comments.
|
|
|
|
**Reviewer**: UA Developer or Senior Developer
|
|
|
|
**Time Required**: 1-2 hours per API with 5-10 methods
|
|
|
|
**Checklist**:
|
|
|
|
**Overview & Completeness**:
|
|
- [ ] All public methods documented?
|
|
- [ ] All public classes documented?
|
|
- [ ] All public attributes documented?
|
|
- [ ] All parameters documented?
|
|
- [ ] All return values documented?
|
|
- [ ] All exceptions documented?
|
|
|
|
**Description Quality**:
|
|
- [ ] Descriptions are clear and unambiguous?
|
|
- [ ] Descriptions avoid implementation details?
|
|
- [ ] Descriptions use consistent terminology?
|
|
- [ ] Descriptions explain purpose and usage?
|
|
- [ ] No unnecessary technical jargon?
|
|
|
|
**Tag Usage**:
|
|
- [ ] Appropriate tags used for language?
|
|
- [ ] Tags in correct order (consistent)?
|
|
- [ ] Tag information is complete?
|
|
- [ ] No conflicting or redundant tags?
|
|
- [ ] Examples provided for complex concepts?
|
|
|
|
**Code Examples**:
|
|
- [ ] Examples included where helpful?
|
|
- [ ] Examples are accurate?
|
|
- [ ] Examples follow best practices?
|
|
- [ ] Examples actually compile/run?
|
|
|
|
**Security & Privacy**:
|
|
- [ ] No hardcoded credentials in examples?
|
|
- [ ] No sensitive data in samples?
|
|
- [ ] Examples don't expose internal details?
|
|
|
|
**If Issues Found**:
|
|
1. Categorize by severity
|
|
2. Provide specific examples
|
|
3. Show corrected version if possible
|
|
4. Discuss with developer
|
|
5. Schedule re-review after fixes
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Quick Checklist: Manually Written Documentation
|
|
|
|
**Use this when**: Reviewing REST API docs, OData docs, developer guides, or integration guides.
|
|
|
|
**Reviewer**: UA Developer and Product Owner
|
|
|
|
**Time Required**: 2-4 hours depending on length
|
|
|
|
**Checklist**:
|
|
|
|
**Structure & Organization**:
|
|
- [ ] Logical progression of topics?
|
|
- [ ] Clear navigation between sections?
|
|
- [ ] Appropriate use of headings?
|
|
- [ ] Related content linked together?
|
|
- [ ] Search-friendly structure?
|
|
|
|
**Content Completeness**:
|
|
- [ ] All required sections included?
|
|
- [ ] Each endpoint/method documented?
|
|
- [ ] Parameters documented?
|
|
- [ ] Response codes documented?
|
|
- [ ] Examples provided?
|
|
|
|
**Description Quality**:
|
|
- [ ] Descriptions clear and accurate?
|
|
- [ ] Terminology consistent?
|
|
- [ ] Avoid implementation details?
|
|
- [ ] Address typical use cases?
|
|
- [ ] Explain error conditions?
|
|
|
|
**Code Examples**:
|
|
- [ ] Examples accurate and complete?
|
|
- [ ] Examples runnable without errors?
|
|
- [ ] Examples show realistic usage?
|
|
- [ ] Examples include error handling?
|
|
- [ ] Examples have explanatory comments?
|
|
|
|
**Technical Accuracy**:
|
|
- [ ] Descriptions match actual behavior?
|
|
- [ ] Examples work as documented?
|
|
- [ ] No outdated information?
|
|
- [ ] All links functional?
|
|
- [ ] Dependencies clearly stated?
|
|
|
|
**If Issues Found**:
|
|
1. Provide detailed feedback with examples
|
|
2. Suggest structural improvements
|
|
3. Offer example revisions if needed
|
|
4. Prioritize by impact on usability
|
|
5. Schedule revision and re-review
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Quick Checklist: Code Examples
|
|
|
|
**Use this when**: Reviewing code snippets, sample applications, or demo code.
|
|
|
|
**Reviewer**: Senior Developer or QA Lead
|
|
|
|
**Time Required**: 1-2 hours per example
|
|
|
|
**Checklist**:
|
|
|
|
**Functionality**:
|
|
- [ ] Code compiles/runs successfully?
|
|
- [ ] Code produces expected output?
|
|
- [ ] Dependencies properly documented?
|
|
- [ ] Setup instructions complete?
|
|
- [ ] Example doesn't require undocumented setup?
|
|
|
|
**Correctness**:
|
|
- [ ] Logic is correct and appropriate?
|
|
- [ ] Code follows best practices?
|
|
- [ ] Error handling included?
|
|
- [ ] Edge cases considered?
|
|
- [ ] Performance reasonable?
|
|
|
|
**Security**:
|
|
- [ ] No hardcoded credentials or keys?
|
|
- [ ] No sensitive data in examples?
|
|
- [ ] No security vulnerabilities?
|
|
- [ ] Security assumptions documented?
|
|
- [ ] Proper input validation shown?
|
|
|
|
**Clarity**:
|
|
- [ ] Code is readable and well-commented?
|
|
- [ ] Variable names are clear?
|
|
- [ ] Complex logic explained?
|
|
- [ ] Purpose of example clear?
|
|
- [ ] Related examples cross-referenced?
|
|
|
|
**Completeness**:
|
|
- [ ] Example shows the intended use case?
|
|
- [ ] All required steps included?
|
|
- [ ] Success and failure paths shown?
|
|
- [ ] Expected output documented?
|
|
- [ ] Variations explained?
|
|
|
|
**If Issues Found**:
|
|
1. Test locally to confirm issues
|
|
2. Provide corrected version
|
|
3. Explain the problem and solution
|
|
4. Schedule testing of revised example
|
|
5. Verify fix with developer
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Quick Checklist: Error Messages
|
|
|
|
**Use this when**: Reviewing error messages, exception messages, or API error responses.
|
|
|
|
**Reviewer**: UA Developer and UX Designer
|
|
|
|
**Time Required**: 30 minutes - 1 hour
|
|
|
|
**Checklist**:
|
|
|
|
**Clarity**:
|
|
- [ ] Error message is clear and understandable?
|
|
- [ ] Explains what went wrong?
|
|
- [ ] No cryptic codes or jargon?
|
|
- [ ] Appropriate for target audience?
|
|
- [ ] Same error uses consistent message?
|
|
|
|
**Actionability**:
|
|
- [ ] Message suggests how to fix the problem?
|
|
- [ ] Provides next steps where possible?
|
|
- [ ] Links to relevant documentation?
|
|
- [ ] Error code provided for support?
|
|
- [ ] Technical details available but not overwhelming?
|
|
|
|
**Tone & Quality**:
|
|
- [ ] Tone is professional and helpful?
|
|
- [ ] Message is not accusatory?
|
|
- [ ] Grammar and spelling correct?
|
|
- [ ] Consistent with other error messages?
|
|
- [ ] Localization considered (if applicable)?
|
|
|
|
**Context**:
|
|
- [ ] Error message appropriate for the failure?
|
|
- [ ] Related errors use related messages?
|
|
- [ ] Severity level clear?
|
|
- [ ] Recovery path documented?
|
|
|
|
**Examples**:
|
|
|
|
| Error | Poor Message | Good Message |
|
|
|-------|---|---|
|
|
| Invalid Email | "Invalid input" | "Email format is invalid. Use format: name@example.com" |
|
|
| Missing Field | "Bad request" | "Required field 'firstName' is missing from request body" |
|
|
| API Key Expired | "Unauthorized" | "API key expired on 2024-01-15. Generate a new key from Developer Dashboard" |
|
|
| Resource Not Found | "404" | "Product with ID 'abc123' not found in your account" |
|
|
|
|
**If Issues Found**:
|
|
1. Identify specific message problems
|
|
2. Provide improved version
|
|
3. Check related error messages for consistency
|
|
4. Discuss implications with developer
|
|
5. Update all similar error messages
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Review Feedback Template
|
|
|
|
**Use this template** when providing feedback on API documentation.
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
REVIEWER: [Name]
|
|
REVIEW DATE: [Date]
|
|
API NAME: [API or Resource Name]
|
|
REVIEW AREA: [ ] Names [ ] Descriptions [ ] Code Comments [ ] Examples [ ] Errors [ ] Other: ____
|
|
|
|
FINDINGS SUMMARY:
|
|
[Brief overview of key issues and strengths]
|
|
|
|
PRIORITY 1 - BLOCKING ISSUES (Must fix before publication):
|
|
1. [Issue Description]
|
|
Current: [Current text/implementation]
|
|
Recommended: [Suggested improvement]
|
|
|
|
2. [Issue Description]
|
|
Current: [Current text/implementation]
|
|
Recommended: [Suggested improvement]
|
|
|
|
PRIORITY 2 - IMPORTANT (Should fix before publication):
|
|
1. [Issue Description]
|
|
Current: [Current text/implementation]
|
|
Recommended: [Suggested improvement]
|
|
|
|
PRIORITY 3 - NICE TO HAVE (Optional improvements):
|
|
1. [Suggestion]
|
|
|
|
STRENGTHS (What was done well):
|
|
- [Positive feedback]
|
|
- [Positive feedback]
|
|
|
|
NEXT STEPS:
|
|
1. Developer implements Priority 1 and 2 fixes
|
|
2. Resubmit for verification
|
|
3. Schedule publication once approved
|
|
|
|
REVIEWER SIGN-OFF:
|
|
[ ] Ready for publication (all issues resolved)
|
|
[ ] Pending revision (will re-review after fixes)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Common Review Findings
|
|
|
|
### Common Finding #1: Unclear Descriptions
|
|
|
|
**Problem**: API descriptions are vague or don't explain functionality clearly.
|
|
|
|
**Examples of Issues**:
|
|
```
|
|
❌ POOR: "Manages user data"
|
|
✅ GOOD: "Creates, updates, retrieves, and deletes user profiles in the system"
|
|
|
|
❌ POOR: "Processes information"
|
|
✅ GOOD: "Analyzes sales data to identify top-performing products by region"
|
|
|
|
❌ POOR: "Handles requests"
|
|
✅ GOOD: "Accepts order requests, validates inventory, and returns fulfillment status"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**How to Address**:
|
|
1. Ask developer: "What does this API actually do?"
|
|
2. Provide concrete example of better description
|
|
3. Explain impact: "Developers need clear understanding of what to use"
|
|
4. Review similar APIs for consistency
|
|
5. Verify fix: Re-read improved description without API code
|
|
|
|
**Prevention**:
|
|
- Train developers on description guidelines
|
|
- Use review templates with examples
|
|
- Reference style guide during development
|
|
- Early review catches vagueness quickly
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Common Finding #2: Inconsistent Terminology
|
|
|
|
**Problem**: Same concepts referred to by different names across documentation.
|
|
|
|
**Examples of Issues**:
|
|
```
|
|
❌ INCONSISTENT:
|
|
- "customer ID" in one place
|
|
- "customer identifier" in another
|
|
- "cust_id" in another
|
|
|
|
✅ CONSISTENT: Always use "customer ID"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**How to Address**:
|
|
1. Create terminology list for API
|
|
2. Search documentation for all variations
|
|
3. Replace with standard term consistently
|
|
4. Update documentation templates to use standard term
|
|
5. Document approved terminology
|
|
|
|
**Prevention**:
|
|
- Create glossary before starting documentation
|
|
- Use search-and-replace to ensure consistency
|
|
- Review with UA team early
|
|
- Use automated tools to check consistency
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Common Finding #3: Incomplete Parameter Documentation
|
|
|
|
**Problem**: Parameters documented but missing important details.
|
|
|
|
**Examples of Issues**:
|
|
```
|
|
❌ INCOMPLETE:
|
|
Parameter: userID (string)
|
|
|
|
✅ COMPLETE:
|
|
Parameter: userID (string, required)
|
|
Description: The unique identifier for the user in format "USER-12345"
|
|
Example: "USER-00789"
|
|
Constraints: Alphanumeric, 10 characters maximum, case-sensitive
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**How to Address**:
|
|
1. Use parameter documentation template
|
|
2. For each parameter, verify:
|
|
- Name and type documented?
|
|
- Required vs. optional clear?
|
|
- Format/constraints specified?
|
|
- Example provided?
|
|
- Related parameters mentioned?
|
|
3. Test documentation against real use
|
|
4. Verify with code implementation
|
|
|
|
**Prevention**:
|
|
- Use automated extraction from source code
|
|
- Document parameters as code is written
|
|
- Early review catches incompleteness
|
|
- Use parameter template consistently
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Common Finding #4: Code Examples That Don't Work
|
|
|
|
**Problem**: Code examples have errors or don't actually run successfully.
|
|
|
|
**Examples of Issues**:
|
|
```
|
|
❌ BROKEN:
|
|
const user = api.getUser(userId)
|
|
// Missing: This line needs error handling
|
|
// Missing: Actual error handling shown
|
|
|
|
✅ WORKING:
|
|
try {
|
|
const user = await api.getUser(userId)
|
|
console.log(`Retrieved user: ${user.name}`)
|
|
} catch (error) {
|
|
console.error(`Failed to retrieve user: ${error.message}`)
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**How to Address**:
|
|
1. Test every code example locally
|
|
2. Ensure all dependencies are available
|
|
3. Include all necessary imports/setup
|
|
4. Show error handling
|
|
5. Verify output matches description
|
|
6. Include complete, runnable code (not snippets)
|
|
7. Document any dependencies or prerequisites
|
|
|
|
**Prevention**:
|
|
- Require developer to test example before submission
|
|
- Use linters/compilers to verify syntax
|
|
- Include examples in automated tests
|
|
- Re-test examples before each publication
|
|
- Use code example templates
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Common Finding #5: Security Issues in Examples
|
|
|
|
**Problem**: Examples include hardcoded credentials, sensitive data, or security vulnerabilities.
|
|
|
|
**Examples of Issues**:
|
|
```
|
|
❌ SECURITY RISK:
|
|
const apiKey = "sk_live_4eC39HqLyjWDarhtT657a835"
|
|
const email = "john.smith@company.com"
|
|
|
|
✅ SECURE:
|
|
const apiKey = process.env.API_KEY // Load from environment
|
|
const email = "user@example.com" // Generic example
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**How to Address**:
|
|
1. Remove all real credentials from examples
|
|
2. Use environment variables for keys/credentials
|
|
3. Use generic example data (no real names/emails)
|
|
4. Document security best practices
|
|
5. Show proper authentication patterns
|
|
6. Include security notes in documentation
|
|
|
|
**Prevention**:
|
|
- Security review as part of example testing
|
|
- Linting tools to detect hardcoded secrets
|
|
- Code review process checks for credentials
|
|
- Templates show correct patterns
|
|
- Documentation warns about security
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Common Finding #6: Missing Examples for Complex Operations
|
|
|
|
**Problem**: Complex functionality documented but no examples of how to use it.
|
|
|
|
**Examples**:
|
|
```
|
|
❌ NO EXAMPLE:
|
|
"This endpoint supports complex filtering with nested conditions"
|
|
[No example showing how to structure the filter]
|
|
|
|
✅ WITH EXAMPLE:
|
|
"This endpoint supports complex filtering with nested conditions"
|
|
|
|
Example: Filter orders from 2024 where total > $1000:
|
|
{
|
|
"filter": {
|
|
"date": { "gte": "2024-01-01" },
|
|
"total": { "gt": 1000 }
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**How to Address**:
|
|
1. Identify complex functionality
|
|
2. Create example scenarios
|
|
3. Show request and response
|
|
4. Explain what makes it complex
|
|
5. Include variations
|
|
6. Test example works correctly
|
|
|
|
**Prevention**:
|
|
- Review templates include example requirements
|
|
- Early review identifies complex areas
|
|
- Developer provides examples during development
|
|
- QA tests complex scenarios
|
|
- Documentation includes real-world use cases
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Common Finding #7: Inconsistent Error Response Format
|
|
|
|
**Problem**: Error messages format and details vary inconsistently.
|
|
|
|
**Examples of Issues**:
|
|
```
|
|
❌ INCONSISTENT:
|
|
Error 1: "User not found"
|
|
Error 2: { "code": "PRODUCT_NOT_FOUND", "message": "Product with ID 123 not found" }
|
|
Error 3: { "error": { "type": "INVALID_REQUEST", "description": "Invalid request format" } }
|
|
|
|
✅ CONSISTENT:
|
|
{
|
|
"code": "ERROR_CODE",
|
|
"message": "Human-readable description",
|
|
"details": { /* context */ }
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**How to Address**:
|
|
1. Define standard error response format
|
|
2. Document format with examples
|
|
3. Apply consistently to all error codes
|
|
4. Include all error codes in documentation
|
|
5. Organize errors logically (by category)
|
|
6. Explain how to handle each error type
|
|
|
|
**Prevention**:
|
|
- Establish error format standard early
|
|
- Use error response templates
|
|
- Code generation tools enforce format
|
|
- Review catches inconsistencies
|
|
- Documentation tools validate format
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Common Finding #8: Missing or Incorrect Link References
|
|
|
|
**Problem**: Links in documentation point to wrong locations or are broken.
|
|
|
|
**Examples of Issues**:
|
|
```
|
|
❌ BROKEN:
|
|
"See [authentication guide](../auth-guide) for details"
|
|
(File doesn't exist at that location)
|
|
|
|
✅ WORKING:
|
|
"See [authentication guide](/docs/auth-guide.md) for details"
|
|
(Link verified to work)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**How to Address**:
|
|
1. Document link strategy (relative vs. absolute URLs)
|
|
2. Use link checking tools
|
|
3. Test all links before publication
|
|
4. Use consistent naming conventions
|
|
5. Document link structure
|
|
6. Update links when files move
|
|
7. Use canonical URLs where possible
|
|
|
|
**Prevention**:
|
|
- Automated link checking in CI/CD
|
|
- Use link validator tools
|
|
- Document file structure clearly
|
|
- Version links in documentation
|
|
- Use linkers (if available) instead of hand-coded links
|
|
- Regular link audits
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Common Finding #9: API Description Repeats Parameter Details
|
|
|
|
**Problem**: API description repeats information already documented in parameter section.
|
|
|
|
**Examples of Issues**:
|
|
```
|
|
❌ REPETITIVE:
|
|
Operation: "Creates a new user with firstName, lastName, and email"
|
|
|
|
Parameters:
|
|
- firstName (string): The user's first name
|
|
- lastName (string): The user's last name
|
|
- email (string): The user's email address
|
|
|
|
✅ FOCUSED:
|
|
Operation: "Creates a new user account"
|
|
|
|
Parameters:
|
|
- firstName (string): The user's first name
|
|
- lastName (string): The user's last name
|
|
- email (string): The user's email address
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**How to Address**:
|
|
1. Review API descriptions
|
|
2. Remove details documented elsewhere
|
|
3. Keep description focused on purpose
|
|
4. Reference parameter section if needed
|
|
5. Ensure description adds value
|
|
6. Check for redundancy with all text
|
|
|
|
**Prevention**:
|
|
- Establish style guide for description content
|
|
- Review templates show good/bad examples
|
|
- Early review catches redundancy
|
|
- Documentation generation removes duplication
|
|
- Linting tools identify repetition
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Common Finding #10: Insufficient Error Documentation
|
|
|
|
**Problem**: API errors documented but lacking guidance on recovery or causes.
|
|
|
|
**Examples of Issues**:
|
|
```
|
|
❌ INSUFFICIENT:
|
|
400: Bad Request
|
|
401: Unauthorized
|
|
404: Not Found
|
|
|
|
✅ COMPLETE:
|
|
400: Bad Request - Request validation failed
|
|
Common causes: Missing required field, invalid format
|
|
Solution: Check request structure matches schema
|
|
|
|
401: Unauthorized - Authentication failed
|
|
Common causes: Missing/expired API key, insufficient permissions
|
|
Solution: Verify API key in Authorization header
|
|
|
|
404: Not Found - Resource doesn't exist
|
|
Common causes: Invalid resource ID, resource was deleted
|
|
Solution: Verify resource ID matches existing record
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**How to Address**:
|
|
1. Document each error code with:
|
|
- What triggered the error
|
|
- Common causes
|
|
- How to fix it
|
|
2. Provide recovery steps
|
|
3. Include troubleshooting guidance
|
|
4. Link to related documentation
|
|
5. Provide examples of valid requests
|
|
|
|
**Prevention**:
|
|
- Error documentation template with required sections
|
|
- Code review validates error handling
|
|
- QA tests error scenarios
|
|
- Documentation reviews check completeness
|
|
- Real-world support tickets inform error docs
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Summary of Review Areas and Responsibilities
|
|
|
|
| Review Area | Primary Reviewer | Secondary Reviewer | Frequency | Effort |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| **API Names** | UA Developer | Product Manager | Early design | 30 min |
|
|
| **Descriptions** | UA Developer | Senior Developer | Throughout | 1-2 hours |
|
|
| **Code Comments** | UA Developer | Developer Lead | During development | 2-4 hours |
|
|
| **Code Examples** | Senior Developer | QA Lead | Before publication | 1-2 hours |
|
|
| **Error Messages** | UA Developer | UX Designer | Before publication | 30 min - 1 hour |
|
|
| **Manual Documentation** | UA Developer | Product Owner | Throughout | 2-4 hours |
|
|
| **OpenAPI Specs** | UA Developer | Product Team | Before publication | 1-2 hours |
|
|
| **Security/Privacy** | Security Team | Developer | Before publication | 30 min - 1 hour |
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Key Principles to Remember
|
|
|
|
### 1. Quality Starts with Clear Planning
|
|
- Prepare specifications before implementation
|
|
- Plan reviews in the development cycle
|
|
- Allocate adequate time for feedback and revision
|
|
|
|
### 2. Early Review Prevents Major Issues
|
|
- Review at design stage, not at end
|
|
- Early feedback is easier and cheaper to implement
|
|
- Prevents last-minute surprises
|
|
|
|
### 3. Complete Feedback Implementation is Essential
|
|
- Partial implementation wastes reviewer time
|
|
- Undermines value of the review process
|
|
- Leads to recurring issues in future APIs
|
|
|
|
### 4. Consumer Focus Drives Quality
|
|
- Document for consumers, not for developers
|
|
- Use plain language
|
|
- Provide practical examples
|
|
- Address common questions
|
|
|
|
### 5. Collaboration Across Teams is Critical
|
|
- Developers write the code and comments
|
|
- UA professionals ensure clarity and consistency
|
|
- Product teams provide business context
|
|
- Everyone works together for quality
|
|
|
|
### 6. Documentation is Never "Done"
|
|
- Review new versions of APIs
|
|
- Update documentation when APIs change
|
|
- Fix issues discovered by consumers
|
|
- Iterate continuously for improvement
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## References
|
|
|
|
- **SAP API Style Guide**: [https://github.com/SAP-docs/api-style-guide](https://github.com/SAP-docs/api-style-guide)
|
|
- **OpenAPI Specification**: [https://spec.openapis.org/oas/latest.html](https://spec.openapis.org/oas/latest.html)
|
|
- **OData v4.01**: [https://www.odata.org/documentation/](https://www.odata.org/documentation/)
|
|
- **SAP API Business Hub**: [https://api.sap.com/](https://api.sap.com/)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
**Document Version**: 1.0.0
|
|
**Last Updated**: 2025-11-21
|
|
**Status**: Complete
|
|
**License**: GPL-3.0
|
|
**Maintainer**: SAP Skills Team | [https://github.com/secondsky/sap-skills](https://github.com/secondsky/sap-skills)
|