geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI
Date Mon, 11 Feb 2019 17:06:28 GMT
Then just upgrade?
About the "not needed", it depends but not an issue by itself AFAIK.

Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 17:37, Ivan Junckes Filho <ivanjunckes@gmail.com> a
écrit :

> This is how it is showing up in components, schemas. But with a lot of not
> needed properties as  this class has only telefone, mensagem and usuario.
>
>  "br_com_gbrsistemas_crvirtual_sms_Sms": {
>         "deprecated": false,
>         "exclusiveMaximum": false,
>         "exclusiveMinimum": false,
>         "maxLength": 2147483647,
>         "minLength": 0,
>         "nullable": false,
>         "properties": {
>           "telefone": {
>             "type": "string"
>           },
>           "mensagem": {
>             "type": "string"
>           },
>           "usuario": {
>             "type": "string"
>           }
>         },
>         "readOnly": false,
>         "type": "object",
>         "uniqueItems": false,
>         "writeOnly": false
>       },
>
> Also the SNAPSHOT service path references the previous schema also with a
> lot of not needed properties like deprecated, etc.
>
> /sms/enviar": {
>       "post": {
>         "deprecated": false,
>         "description": "Enviar SMS.",
>         "operationId": "enviarSms",
>         "parameters": [
>
>         ],
>         "requestBody": {
>           "content": {
>             "*/*": {
>               "schema": {
>                 "$ref":
> "#/components/schemas/br_com_gbrsistemas_crvirtual_sms_Sms",
>                 "deprecated": false,
>                 "exclusiveMaximum": false,
>                 "exclusiveMinimum": false,
>                 "maxLength": 2147483647,
>                 "minLength": 0,
>                 "nullable": false,
>                 "readOnly": false,
>                 "type": "object",
>                 "uniqueItems": false,
>                 "writeOnly": false
>               }
>             }
>           },
>           "required": false
>         },
>         "responses": {
>           "200": {
>             "content": {
>               "text/plain": {
>                 "schema": {
>                   "deprecated": false,
>                   "exclusiveMaximum": false,
>                   "exclusiveMinimum": false,
>                   "maxLength": 2147483647,
>                   "minLength": 0,
>                   "nullable": false,
>                   "readOnly": false,
>                   "type": "string",
>                   "uniqueItems": false,
>                   "writeOnly": false
>                 }
>               }
>             },
>             "description": "Success"
>           },
>           "400": {
>             "content": {
>               "200": {
>
>               }
>             },
>             "description": "Bad Request"
>           }
>         },
>         "security": [
>           {
>             "bearer": [
>
>             ]
>           }
>         ]
>       }
>     },
>
> The current m2 version of TomEE doesn't even show ref or any schema
> classes.
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:12 PM Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ivan, no the mapping can need some polishing to become mainstream
>> (cause it is not openapi role to reimplement all mappers logic) but the
>> annotation mapping is done.
>> This one can depend the companions this annotation has, some will imply
>> it gets ignored but AFAIK TCK test that and we pass them.
>>
>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>
>>
>> Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 14:56, Ivan Junckes Filho <ivanjunckes@gmail.com>
>> a écrit :
>>
>>> One thing I saw happening too, is when I add the annotation below it
>>> doesn't get added to openapi.
>>>
>>> @RequestBody(content = @Content(schema = @Schema(implementation = Sms.class)))
>>>
>>>
>>> Is that because it is under development?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:38 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes Ivan, array mapping is in progress. In the meantime you can define
>>>> your schema to ensure you control it and the implicit representation does
>>>> not depends on the way the impl parses it - which can not match your
>>>> underlying mapper.
>>>>
>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>>> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>> <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 14:23, Ivan Junckes Filho <
>>>> ivanjunckes@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Looks like it is fixed in the master, but when I get the lib and add
>>>>> to tomee it shows some bad behavior with the schemas.
>>>>>
>>>>> [image: image.png]
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:09 AM Ivan Junckes Filho <
>>>>> ivanjunckes@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No I didn't, I will have a look. thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:08 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>>>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Ivan,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you test on the snapshot? we got some enhancements about
it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>>>>>> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
>>>>>>> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
>>>>>>> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <
>>>>>>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
>>>>>>> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 14:03, Ivan Junckes Filho <
>>>>>>> ivanjunckes@gmail.com> a
>>>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Hey guys, I think there is an issue with parameters as the
"in"
>>>>>>> property
>>>>>>> > is required by the spec and is not showing up. This affects
>>>>>>> swagger-ui as
>>>>>>> > it doesn't replace uf by the actual value. Anyone aware
of this
>>>>>>> issue?
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > {
>>>>>>> >   "openapi": "3.0.1",
>>>>>>> >   "paths": {
>>>>>>> >     "/test/{uf}": {
>>>>>>> >       "get": {
>>>>>>> >         "deprecated": false,
>>>>>>> >         "description": "Test by UF.",
>>>>>>> >         "operationId": "test",
>>>>>>> >         "parameters": [
>>>>>>> >           {
>>>>>>> >             "name": "uf",
>>>>>>> >             "required": true,
>>>>>>> >             "schema": {
>>>>>>> >               "type": "string"
>>>>>>> >             },
>>>>>>> >             "style": "simple"
>>>>>>> >           }
>>>>>>> >         ],
>>>>>>> >         "responses": {
>>>>>>> >           "200": {
>>>>>>> >             "content": {
>>>>>>> >               "application/json": {
>>>>>>> >                 "schema": {
>>>>>>> >                   "deprecated": false,
>>>>>>> >                   "exclusiveMaximum": false,
>>>>>>> >                   "exclusiveMinimum": false,
>>>>>>> >                   "items": {
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >                   },
>>>>>>> >                   "maxLength": 2147483647,
>>>>>>> >                   "minLength": 0,
>>>>>>> >                   "nullable": false,
>>>>>>> >                   "properties": {
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >                   },
>>>>>>> >                   "readOnly": false,
>>>>>>> >                   "uniqueItems": false,
>>>>>>> >                   "writeOnly": false
>>>>>>> >                 }
>>>>>>> >               }
>>>>>>> >             },
>>>>>>> >             "description": "Success"
>>>>>>> >           },
>>>>>>> >           "400": {
>>>>>>> >             "content": {
>>>>>>> >               "200": {
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >               }
>>>>>>> >             },
>>>>>>> >             "description": "Bad Request"
>>>>>>> >           }
>>>>>>> >         },
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >       }
>>>>>>> >     },
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >   }
>>>>>>> >   ]
>>>>>>> > }
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>

Mime
View raw message