{"action":"closed","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/json-api/json-api/issues/1099","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/json-api/json-api","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/json-api/json-api/issues/1099/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/json-api/json-api/issues/1099/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/json-api/json-api/issues/1099/events","html_url":"https://github.com/json-api/json-api/issues/1099","id":178895707,"number":1099,"title":"Additional fields parameter","user":{"login":"malejpavouk","id":4127023,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4127023?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/malejpavouk","html_url":"https://github.com/malejpavouk","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/malejpavouk/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/malejpavouk/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/malejpavouk/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/malejpavouk/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/malejpavouk/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/malejpavouk/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/malejpavouk/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/malejpavouk/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/malejpavouk/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"closed","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":2,"created_at":"2016-09-23T14:43:51Z","updated_at":"2016-10-03T18:09:36Z","closed_at":"2016-10-03T18:09:36Z","body":"Hi,\r\n\r\nwe have maybe found a small missing piece in the 1.0 specification. Currently the spec supports sparse fields - you can limit which fields to include.\r\n\r\nOur API currently works also in an opposite way - we have fields, which are very expensive to request, hence our APIs have additional-fields param, using which you specify these fields (and which we are missing in JSON API).\r\n\r\nWe can't make these fields related resources, as there are many of these fields (it would be expensive to maintain these as separate resources) and also it usually does not make sense to require these fields separately.\r\n\r\nIs there any construct in current JSON API spec, which would allow this? If not, is there any recommendation, how shall we proceed? Is the additional-fields parameter acceptable?\r\n\r\nThanks"}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"malejpavouk"}}