Skip to content

Discussion: should Hunter cover the Admin API? #128

Description

@milmazz

Mastodon exposes a moderation/administration API under /api/v1/admin/* with these subcategories:

  • Accounts
  • Canonical email blocks
  • Dimensions
  • Domain allows
  • Domain blocks
  • Email domain blocks
  • IP blocks
  • Measures
  • Reports
  • Retention
  • Trends

That's roughly 30+ additional endpoints requiring admin-scoped tokens (admin:read/admin:write), a distinct entity namespace (Admin::Account, Admin::Report, ...), and a user base (moderation tooling) different from Hunter's typical client use case.

Question to settle before any implementation: should Hunter cover the Admin API at all, and if so, in-tree (e.g. a Hunter.Admin.* namespace) or as a separate package?

Options:

  1. In-tree Hunter.Admin.* — one dependency for bot/tooling authors, but roughly doubles the API surface to maintain
  2. Separate hunter_admin package built on Hunter's request layer
  3. Out of scope — document the decision and close

Part of the Mastodon 4.6 API parity effort.

References

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions