Adding Beeceptor

[ankitjaininfo]

https://beeceptor.com/

Beeceptor provides Rest API mocking and intercepting with no code. You can upload the OAS and get the mocking server up and running in no time

• Named endpoints
• Interceptor HTTP Request, Mock API calls, Proxy-pass to real APIs.
• Free plan and no sign up required.

Refer to documentation: https://docs.beeceptor.com/docs/features-oas/

[ankitjaininfo]

did you get a chance to review this? Beeceptor would be a good addition.

[darrelmiller]

@ankitjaininfo We (as in the maintainers of this site) need to have a conversation about commercial SAAS services and whether they are appropriate for this list.

[daveshanley]

@ankitjaininfo We (as in the maintainers of this site) need to have a conversation about commercial SAAS services and whether they are appropriate for this list.

We should do this sooner than later. I think adding a new commercial category and pushing all non-FOSS tools into that category could be a potential solution.

[ankitjaininfo]

I think this repo has the biggest collection of tools. I liked the idea of explicitly declaring "Commercial Tools" as a section or another dedicated page, which will help this site become a comprehensive directory.

[darrelmiller]

@daveshanley As some SAAS products have free editions, I think we need to qualify that unless the source code for the tool is available in a public source repo with an OSS license, then the tool should be listed in the commercial category.

[AndrewWalsh]

@darrelmiller @philsturgeon @daveshanley @mbifulco Can I clarify our stance on this matter? Is there anything I should be aware of with regard to defining commercial projects in these YAML files? Does this apply even in cases where the commercial offering has an open-source repository?

Beyond this, immediate thoughts on this one, typo with reuiqred:

An HTTP interceptor and rule based mocking service for Rest APIs. No coding reuiqred to create a mock endpoint. No sign-up required.

Should be:

An HTTP interceptor and rule based mocking service for Rest APIs. No coding required to create a mock endpoint. No sign-up required.

Would also be nice to clarify v3_1: xxx status. The github: line can be removed given it's empty. I can provide these suggestions in a review, but would appreciate guidance from those pinged before I go down a path leading towards approval.

Beyond this and a few other potential changes, I don't have opposition to the product. Looks viable, though impossible to validate its claims without a paid plan/authorisation. Following its "simulate in web-browser" path leads to an auth wall. Company appears to be active, overall I have no reasons to suspect (most) of its claims.

That said, a clear path towards validating the company's claims would align with the contribution guidelines. Would appreciate thoughts on this.

• https://www.linkedin.com/company/beeceptor

[philsturgeon]

Let’s have one last SaaS merged then when we merge new site we can split things up into FOSS/SaaS.

…

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 14:52, Andrew Walsh ***@***.***(mailto:On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 14:52, Andrew Walsh <<a href=)> wrote: ***@***.***(https://github.com/darrelmiller) ***@***.***(https://github.com/philsturgeon) ***@***.***(https://github.com/daveshanley) ***@***.***(https://github.com/mbifulco) Can I clarify our stance on this matter? Is there anything I should be aware of with regard to defining commercial projects in these YAML files? Does this apply even in cases where the commercial offering has an open-source repository? Beyond this, immediate thoughts on this one, typo with reuiqred: An HTTP interceptor and rule based mocking service for Rest APIs. No coding reuiqred to create a mock endpoint. No sign-up required. Should be: An HTTP interceptor and rule based mocking service for Rest APIs. No coding required to create a mock endpoint. No sign-up required. Would also be nice to clarify v3_1: xxx status. The github: line can be removed given it's empty. I can provide these suggestions in a review, but would appreciate guidance from those pinged before I go down a path leading towards approval. Beyond this and a few other potential changes, I don't have opposition to the product. Looks viable, though impossible to validate its claims without a paid plan/authorisation. Following its "simulate in web-browser" path leads to an auth wall. Company appears to be active, overall I have no reasons to suspect (most) of its claims. - https://www.linkedin.com/company/beeceptor — Reply to this email directly, [view it on GitHub](#397 (comment)), or [unsubscribe](https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAQONPJFRNT6ZTBNA3FJPTZEXMQPAVCNFSM6AAAAAAV2ZVGX6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMZXGQ3TANZXG4). You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[AndrewWalsh]

@philsturgeon Sounds good, I've a few minor changes @ankitjaininfo if you wouldn't mind taking a look. Then we'll get this merged.

Not too sure about the language field, but I guess SaaS will do prior to relaunch.

[vercel]

@ankitjaininfo is attempting to deploy a commit to the APIs You Won't Hate Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.

[ankitjaininfo]

Appreciate all of your consideration and review of this change. I have completed the suggested changes. Thanks.