Skip to content
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

Define common components for oneof parity across protobuf and OAS. #16

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

rofrankel
Copy link
Contributor

@rofrankel rofrankel commented Jul 29, 2024

See also: aep-dev/aeps#204

rofrankel added a commit to rofrankel/aep.dev that referenced this pull request Jul 29, 2024
This uses the common components defined in aep-dev/aep-components#16.
@rofrankel rofrankel marked this pull request as ready for review July 29, 2024 18:10
@rofrankel rofrankel requested a review from a team as a code owner July 29, 2024 18:10
properties:
user: { type: string }
group: { type: string }
x-aep-oneof:
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Will OAS introduce native support for oneof?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe in OAS 4, but not sure. Good question for @hudlow or @earth2marsh.

components:
schemas:
Document:
type: object
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In proto, oneof is not a nested object. Will this schema be wire compatible with proto?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nope. I'm not aware of a way to solve that, unfortunately. Wire compatibility would be great but I'm not sure it's feasible, and I'm also not sure banning oneofs (and other things) in the AEPs is worth the benefit of wire compatibility.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yeah this is a tricky one. We'd end up having to write our own generator to map the concepts appropriately.

I don't think those who write native HTTP / JSON APIs will like the idea of nested fields as a way of defining oneofs - I sure don't. But it is possible to use the oneof annotation in such a way that proto -> json mappings will still be compliant (just with an additional nested layer).

I think it's best to have OpenAPI / HTTP+JSON have freedom to define it's own interface for now from the resource model (aepc) - then see the discrepancies and make a decision on how much compatibility we want from there.

schemas/oneof.md Show resolved Hide resolved
properties:
user: { type: string }
group: { type: string }
x-aep-oneof:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this should be a list, so there can be multiple oneofs. something like:

properties:
    x-aep-oneofs:
      - properties: [user, group]
        required: true

also do we need a name for this oneof?

In order to represent a `oneof` in OAS, in a way that produces JSON equivalent
to that of protobuf, we define an extension `x-aep-oneof`:

```yaml
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

the examples in aep.dev or json - shouldn't this also be json?

Copy link
Member

@toumorokoshi toumorokoshi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

added some more comments! thanks.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants