Successful [DeFacto-001] Factom Open API (Sprint 1)

Was Factom Open API (Sprint 1) Successful?


Have not voted

Authority Nodes BlockVenture DBGrow DBGrow HashQuark LUCIAP LUCIAP

  • Total voters
    28
  • Poll closed .

Anton Ilzheev

De Facto
Exchange Working Group
Core Committee
Website Committee
Name: Factom Open API (Sprint 1)
Code: [DeFacto-001]
Type: Development
Description: This grant is for development of Factom Open-source API — Harmony competitor. Open-source API with advanced functions will lower barrier to entry for traditional (non-blockchain) developers & developer companies and bring new developers, clients and users to the Protocol.

Grant sponsor: Jay Cheroske (Bedrock Solutions)
FCT received: 6,980 FCT (development) + 400 FCT (sponsor)

Grant application thread on Factomize:
https://factomize.com/forums/thread...open-source-rest-graphql-api-for-factom.1493/

Current status:
Milestone 1 —Development of Open API & SDKs — 95% ready
Milestone 2 — Package into Docker image, write API documentation & installation guides — 30% ready
 

Jay Cheroske

Bedrock Solutions
Factom Open API (Sprint 1) Final Report

Original Grant Proposal

Grant Summary

The purpose of this grant is to create the first open-source REST API for Factom. Factom Open API makes it easy to build on top of the Factom protocol. This API, written in GoLang, provides critical improvements to the base FactomD API, including transaction persistence, performant querying of Factom data, and user management. The API can be run alongside a local FactomD node for trustless, production ready integration of Factom into applications.

All milestones in the Factom Open API (Sprint 1) grant are now complete:

✅Milestone 1 —Development of Open API & SDKs
✅Milestone 2 — Package into Docker image, write API documentation & installation guides

Sponsor Review

As discussed in the grant application, Bedrock Solutions came into the grant as both a sponsor and to help work on the high level design and architecture of the project. We have been in constant communication with DeFacto throughout the development process. In our discussions, they would routinely bring up high level design trade-offs, tricky edge cases, and future extensibility. This has demonstrated to us a deep commitment and attention to detail by DeFacto. We are extremely impressed with their professionalism at all times. All deliverables were completed within the specified timeline. We rate this grant a success.

Deliverables

To get started, the developers guide and source code are here:
REST API documentation:
There are two options for installation:
  1. Docker Image
  2. Binary
Clients

Factom Open API clients have been released in Python and PHP:
  1. The Python client was auto-generated using Swagger tools.
  2. The PHP client was written by DeFacto.
  3. Javascript and GoLang clients are coming soon.
  4. Auto-generated clients are in beta and will be upgraded and improved in the next version.
  5. The Swagger specification work goes above and beyond the original grant proposal. It enables client support in many languages and allows for the generation of top-quality documentation.
Scoring

We will wait an additional week before proceeding with the scoring of this grant, to give standing parties additional time to setup and evaluate Factom Open API.
 

Anton Ilzheev

De Facto
Exchange Working Group
Core Committee
Website Committee
Per Document 106 - Grant Success Determination Process this grant may now be voted on to determine success or failure.

The following scoring rubrik will be used for this grant per Doc 106:
Exceptional (9.0 - 10.0) - Successful
Overachieved (7.0 - 8.9) - Successful
Achieved (5.0 - 6.9) - Successful
Underachieved (2.0 - 4.9) - Failure
Total Failure (0.0 - 1.9) - Failure

This poll will be open for five days.
 

Alex

Factoshi
Grants from this round are not put to final determination. If we let some be put to final determination but not others, it will skew the historic outlook on grant success.
 

Alex

Factoshi
I’m not wrong though, am I? We should not have had votes for other grants of this age and they should be removed from any grant success calculation. Can you comment @David Chapman?

Either put them all to a vote or put none to a vote
 

David Chapman

Factomize
I’m not wrong though, am I? We should not have had votes for other grants of this age and they should be removed from any grant success calculation. Can you comment @David Chapman?

Either put them all to a vote or put none to a vote
I'm a little confused by the assertion that they aren't supposed to go up for final determination considering two Factomize grants from this round already did.
 

Alex

Factoshi
I'm a little confused by the assertion that they aren't supposed to go up for final determination considering two Factomize grants from this round already did.
I'm not sure they should have, which was why I tagged you. Tor mentions here that grants of this age should not be voted on. I don't really mind one way or another, but I want the rules to be applied consistently to all grants.
 

Nolan Bauer

VBIF
Governance Working Group
They should not have been put up for determination. Foul on all of us for not catching this. That said, it by no means lets grantees prior to the grant determination implementation off the hook. They still have to answer for their work and owe it to the Standing Parties to provide timely updates. If the grantee did not meet the expectations of the Standing Parties, the Standing Parties have every right to use the past performance as a reference point on whether or not to award a future grant.
 

Tor Paulsen

The Factoid Authority
I'm not sure they should have, which was why I tagged you. Tor mentions here that grants of this age should not be voted on. I don't really mind one way or another, but I want the rules to be applied consistently to all grants.
I did a mistake by stating that and have since reversed my position. David is right that there is no clause in governance to prevent any grant from being put up for success determination.
 

Nolan Bauer

VBIF
Governance Working Group
I stand corrected and retract my first sentence. Upon further discussion, there is nothing preventing the Standing Parties from invoking a Grant Determination vote. I do expect respect and decorum between the Standing Parties though. This means giving discussions ample time to play out so everyone can make the best determination on whether or not the grant was successful. GI Joe used to say that "knowing is half the battle". Tough to make a determination on whether a grant is successful or not if we shut down the discussion prematurely.
 
Top