"In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

"In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI

ivanjunckes
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"
          }
        },

      }
    },

  }
  ]
}
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI

Romain Manni-Bucau
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 <[hidden email]> 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"
>           }
>         },
>
>       }
>     },
>
>   }
>   ]
> }
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI

ivanjunckes
No I didn't, I will have a look. thanks

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:08 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]>
> 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"
> >           }
> >         },
> >
> >       }
> >     },
> >
> >   }
> >   ]
> > }
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI

ivanjunckes
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.



On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:09 AM Ivan Junckes Filho <[hidden email]> wrote:
No I didn't, I will have a look. thanks

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:08 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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"
>           }
>         },
>
>       }
>     },
>
>   }
>   ]
> }
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI

Romain Manni-Bucau
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 |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 14:23, Ivan Junckes Filho <[hidden email]> 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.



On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:09 AM Ivan Junckes Filho <[hidden email]> wrote:
No I didn't, I will have a look. thanks

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:08 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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"
>           }
>         },
>
>       }
>     },
>
>   }
>   ]
> }
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI

ivanjunckes
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 <[hidden email]> 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 |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 14:23, Ivan Junckes Filho <[hidden email]> 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.



On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:09 AM Ivan Junckes Filho <[hidden email]> wrote:
No I didn't, I will have a look. thanks

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:08 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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"
>           }
>         },
>
>       }
>     },
>
>   }
>   ]
> }
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI

Romain Manni-Bucau
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 |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 14:56, Ivan Junckes Filho <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | Book


Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 14:23, Ivan Junckes Filho <[hidden email]> 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.



On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:09 AM Ivan Junckes Filho <[hidden email]> wrote:
No I didn't, I will have a look. thanks

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:08 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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"
>           }
>         },
>
>       }
>     },
>
>   }
>   ]
> }
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI

ivanjunckes
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 <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <
>> [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>> 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 <
>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No I didn't, I will have a look. thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:08 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>>> [hidden email]> 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 <
>>>>>> [hidden email]> 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"
>>>>>> >           }
>>>>>> >         },
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >       }
>>>>>> >     },
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >   }
>>>>>> >   ]
>>>>>> > }
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "In" parameter not being populated OpenAPI

Romain Manni-Bucau
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> 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 <
>>> [hidden email]> 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 <
>>>> [hidden email]> 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 <
>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No I didn't, I will have a look. thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:08 AM Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>>>>> [hidden email]> 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 <
>>>>>>> [hidden email]> 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"
>>>>>>> >           }
>>>>>>> >         },
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >       }
>>>>>>> >     },
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >   }
>>>>>>> >   ]
>>>>>>> > }
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>