-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
AWS2OPENAPI-45 fix: remove generic 'allOf' composites #46
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
AWS2OPENAPI-45 fix: remove generic 'allOf' composites #46
Conversation
ivy-rew
commented
Aug 19, 2021
- only keep them where we actually have multiple types that are accepted
- only keep them where we actually have multiple types that are accepted
Hi @MikeRalphson |
Can you expand a little on why an Your PR appears to replace these with ProgressUpdateStream:
$ref: '#/components/schemas/ProgressUpdateStream'
description: 'The name of the ProgressUpdateStream. ' which is less valid according to the spec, because in OAS 3.0 sibling properties of a There are 5 pages of open issues on swagger-codegen about Could you test to see if something like description: foo
allOf:
- $ref: '#/components/schemas/bar' solves the problem you're having with code-gen? |
Thanks for the update @MikeRalphson I've tested manually your proposal, to place the description on the same level as the 'allOf' property. openapi-lex2.yaml However, due to the generic 'allOf' reference, I still loose all the 'type' support in the swagger generated java classes. I'm left with only 'object' references for the available properties. Which makes the generated output less attractive, especially in the complex type hierarchy of this amazon.lex service. |
Yes, a new or updated PR to use this pattern for
That definitely sounds like a bug in the codegen tool. |
makes the spec more compliant with swagger-codegen
Update the PR as discussed: There are still some structures that actually have properties other than $ref within the 'allOf' composites. See the 'xml' properties in ...
I guess this is ok and still valid. |
Anything left to do here @MikeRalphson ? |