You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Ivan Junckes Filho <iv...@gmail.com> on 2019/02/11 12:53:48 UTC
"In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI
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"
}
},
}
},
}
]
}
Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
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 <iv...@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 <rm...@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 <iv...@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"
>>>>>>> > }
>>>>>>> > },
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > }
>>>>>>> > },
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > }
>>>>>>> > ]
>>>>>>> > }
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
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 <iv...@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 <rm...@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 <iv...@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"
>>>>>>> > }
>>>>>>> > },
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > }
>>>>>>> > },
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > }
>>>>>>> > ]
>>>>>>> > }
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI
Posted by Ivan Junckes Filho <iv...@gmail.com>.
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 <rm...@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 <iv...@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 <iv...@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"
>>>>>> > }
>>>>>> > },
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > }
>>>>>> > },
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > }
>>>>>> > ]
>>>>>> > }
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>
Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI
Posted by Ivan Junckes Filho <iv...@gmail.com>.
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 <rm...@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 <iv...@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 <iv...@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"
>>>>>> > }
>>>>>> > },
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > }
>>>>>> > },
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > }
>>>>>> > ]
>>>>>> > }
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>
Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
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 <iv...@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 <rm...@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 <iv...@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"
>>>>> > }
>>>>> > },
>>>>> >
>>>>> > }
>>>>> > },
>>>>> >
>>>>> > }
>>>>> > ]
>>>>> > }
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>
Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
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 <iv...@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 <rm...@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 <iv...@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"
>>>>> > }
>>>>> > },
>>>>> >
>>>>> > }
>>>>> > },
>>>>> >
>>>>> > }
>>>>> > ]
>>>>> > }
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>
Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI
Posted by Ivan Junckes Filho <iv...@gmail.com>.
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 <rm...@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 <iv...@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"
>>>> > }
>>>> > },
>>>> >
>>>> > }
>>>> > },
>>>> >
>>>> > }
>>>> > ]
>>>> > }
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI
Posted by Ivan Junckes Filho <iv...@gmail.com>.
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 <rm...@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 <iv...@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"
>>>> > }
>>>> > },
>>>> >
>>>> > }
>>>> > },
>>>> >
>>>> > }
>>>> > ]
>>>> > }
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
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 <iv...@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 <iv...@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 <iv...@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"
>>> > }
>>> > },
>>> >
>>> > }
>>> > },
>>> >
>>> > }
>>> > ]
>>> > }
>>> >
>>>
>>
Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
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 <iv...@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 <iv...@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 <iv...@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"
>>> > }
>>> > },
>>> >
>>> > }
>>> > },
>>> >
>>> > }
>>> > ]
>>> > }
>>> >
>>>
>>
Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI
Posted by Ivan Junckes Filho <iv...@gmail.com>.
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 <iv...@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 <rm...@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 <iv...@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"
>> > }
>> > },
>> >
>> > }
>> > },
>> >
>> > }
>> > ]
>> > }
>> >
>>
>
Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI
Posted by Ivan Junckes Filho <iv...@gmail.com>.
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 <iv...@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 <rm...@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 <iv...@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"
>> > }
>> > },
>> >
>> > }
>> > },
>> >
>> > }
>> > ]
>> > }
>> >
>>
>
Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI
Posted by Ivan Junckes Filho <iv...@gmail.com>.
No I didn't, I will have a look. thanks
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:08 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@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 <iv...@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"
> > }
> > },
> >
> > }
> > },
> >
> > }
> > ]
> > }
> >
>
Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI
Posted by Ivan Junckes Filho <iv...@gmail.com>.
No I didn't, I will have a look. thanks
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:08 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@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 <iv...@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"
> > }
> > },
> >
> > }
> > },
> >
> > }
> > ]
> > }
> >
>
Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
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 <iv...@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"
> }
> },
>
> }
> },
>
> }
> ]
> }
>
Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
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 <iv...@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"
> }
> },
>
> }
> },
>
> }
> ]
> }
>