looks good. however this pull-request will conflict much with #115 , we need to choose what one we merge first.

looks good. however this pull-request will conflict much with #115 , we need to choose what one we merge first.

hi @da2ce7 I think It's probably better if I rework my changes on top of your PR because:

• This PR is smaller.
• Changes are located in very few places and decoupled from the rest.
• There are more additions than modifications. I think the e2e tests for the API won't be affected too much.
• I can also learn about Clipply pedantic warnings fixing them in this PR.

This PR is ready for review, but you can wait until I fix conflicts with your changes. The change was very easy, but I've added e2e tests for many endpoints. I think these tests are good because they cover many things, not only the API layer.

Besides, It will be easy to add more API tests.

looks good. however this pull-request will conflict much with #115 , we need to choose what one we merge first.

On the other hand 🤔, If we merge first this PR, we are going to have more tests to be sure we have not introduced a regression bug in PR #115.

looks good. however this pull-request will conflict much with #115 , we need to choose what one we merge first.

On the other hand thinking, If we merge first this PR, we are going to have more tests to be sure we have not introduced a regression bug in PR #115.

Okay, we merge this first. Then I will try and rebase #115 on top of this. I like having more checks.

ACK e1b84f6