Appendix C: Methodology
How this book was made
1. Discovery (12 November 2026). GitHub was searched with the GitHub CLI,
sorted by stars, for tinder api, tinder-api, tinder client,
tinder bot, pynder, tinder python and tinder sdk. Links in the
documentation projects were then followed.
2. Filtering. Forks without meaningful changes, copies, unrelated projects and anything in the categories listed in chapter 13 were removed.
3. Metadata. For the remaining 40 projects, stars, last push date,
archive status and license were read from the GitHub REST API
(gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}). scripts/refresh-stats.sh repeats this step.
4. Code review. Six primary projects were cloned. Their endpoints, headers, request bodies and error handling were read directly in the code.
5. Cross-checking. Every endpoint was checked against at least one source to build the reference matrix. Where sources disagree, the most recent code wins and the difference is spelled out.
6. Code samples. The TypeScript samples in chapter 12 were type-checked
with deno check. The C# sample was compiled against .NET 8 with
TreatWarningsAsErrors. None were run against the live API.
Limitations
- No request was tried against a real Tinder account.
- Star counts favor older projects. A 🟢 project with few stars may be the better choice.
pushed_atcan be bumped by trivial commits (formatting bots and the like).- Response schemas come from type definitions in client code. Real responses may contain more fields.