Swagger specification

Default vs required

Use-Case: spec validation rejects default object without required properties

If we have the default for the firstName and lastName but didn't set the username, which is required, we will have an error message showing that we have to put the default for the required field "username" as well.

The "default" section must contain any "required" properties, which is counterintuitive because the "required" properties should always be provided explicitly and shouldn’t have defaults.

Example:

paths:
  /person/{id}:
    put:
      summary: Put a person
      description: Put a person.
      consumes:
        - application/json
      parameters:
        - name: id
          in: path
          description: ID of person
          required: true
          type: integer
        - in: body
          name: body
          description: Person
          schema:
            type: object
            required:
              - username
            default:
              firstName: John
              lastName: Smith
            properties:
              firstName:
                type: string
              lastName:
                type: string
              username:
                type: string
      responses:
        200:
          description: successful

swagger generate model -f person.yaml

I notice that the error message could be prevented if I use swagger generate model --skip-validation. But I think the error message should not show even I just use swagger generate model -f person.yaml because "required" properties should always be provided explicitly and shouldn’t have defaults.

Answer: Those defaults need to be put on the individual members.

The default where you put it is a default for the entire object if it is not provided at all. Thus it must pass validation of the object schema. As per swagger, defaults MUST validate their schema. This differs fro json-Schema spec.

Originally from issue #1552.

Use-Case: go-swagger rejects default object that misses required properties.

My understanding is that properties in default and those listed as required are mutually exclusive, because one is supposed to explicitly provide required properties, while properties in default can be filled in. See https://swagger.io/blog/unlocking-the-spec-the-default-keyword

Example:

paths:
  /person/{id}:
    put:
      summary: Put a person
      description: Put a person.
      consumes:
        - application/json
      parameters:
        - name: id
          in: path
          description: ID of person
          required: true
          type: integer
        - in: body
          name: body
          description: Person
          schema:
            type: object
            required:
              - username
            default:
              firstName: John
              lastName: Smith
            properties:
              firstName:
                type: string
              lastName:
                type: string
              username:
                type: string
      responses:
        200:
          description: successful

Answer: the spec validation warns you about mixing up default with required.

If you override this validation (with swagger generate model --skip-validation), the model generator would override the required clause, and use the default.

Would --skip-validation skip any other validations?

Answer: Yes. --skip-validation skips the call to swagger validate {spec}, which is normally carried on before generation.

For some use cases, we have to, since go-swagger supports constructs that are not stricly swagger-compliant. This one is an example: some override silently take place here at generation time.

Originally from issue #1501.

type string, format int64 not respected in generator

Use-Case: when generating parameters or models from a swagger file with a definition that specifies type: string and format: int64, the generation fails.

Example:

{
    "consumes": [
        "application/json"
    ],
    "definitions": {
        "Test": {
            "properties": {
                "id": {
                    "format": "int64",
                    "type": "string"
                }
            },
            "type": "object"
        }
    },
...

Answer: that's an invalid type. The openapi 2.0 spec says the type should be

type: integer
format: int64

Originally from issue #1381.

Duplicate operationId error

Use-Case: my spec indicates duplicate operationIds but for separate endpoints. When generating a server and there are multiple endpoints, the operations directory in restapi contains subdirectories for each of those endpoints.

Example:

paths:
  '/users/{id}':
    parameters:
      - name: id
        in: path
        required: true
        type: string
    get:
      operationId: getById
      summary: Get User By ID
      tags:
        - Users
      responses:
        '200':
          description: ''
          schema:
            $ref: '#/definitions/user-output'
  '/pets/{id}':
    parameters:
      - name: id
        in: path
        required: true
        type: string
    get:
      operationId: getById
      summary: Get Pet By ID
      tags:
        - Pets
      responses:
        '200':
          description: ''
          schema:
            $ref: '#/definitions/pet-output'

I am expecting a generated structure like so:

└── restapi
    ...
    ├── operations
    │   ├── pets
    │   │   ├── ...
    │   ├── users
    │   │   ├── ...
    │   └── ...

However, instead of generating the server I get this error: "getById" is defined 2 times

Is it possible to bypass this validation error IF the operation ids will go into separate directories?

Answer: operationId is always globally unique per swagger 2.0 specification. The id MUST be unique among all operations described in the API.

https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/master/versions/2.0.md#operationObject

Unique string used to identify the operation. The id MUST be unique among all operations described in the API. Tools and libraries MAY use the operationId to uniquely identify an operation, therefore, it is recommended to follow common programming naming conventions.

Originally from issue #1143.


Back to all contributions

results matching ""

    No results matching ""