camaraproject / QualityOnDemand

Repository to describe, develop, document and test the QualityOnDemand API family
https://wiki.camaraproject.org/x/zwOeAQ
Apache License 2.0
41 stars 59 forks source link

Move "description" out of "allOf" declaration #205

Closed maxl2287 closed 1 year ago

maxl2287 commented 1 year ago

What type of PR is this?

What this PR does / why we need it:

We are currently discovering that by using an openapi generator the current version 0.9.0 of QoD causes problems by having the "description" inside of "allOf"-declaration

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #204

maxl2287 commented 1 year ago

If there is a way to add it to v0.9.0 it would be quite good.

RandyLevensalor commented 1 year ago

@maxl2287 Please see comment in the issue.

Also, many of these AllOf statements were added specifically for the description and could be removed if we were to remove the description from the AllOf.

hdamker commented 1 year ago

Also, many of these AllOf statements were added specifically for the description and could be removed if we were to remove the description from the AllOf.

@RandyLevensalor @maxl2287 have you tested or can you test that the behavior of editors and tooling is then still the expected one? I thought that we needed the allofworkaround to get it done.

jlurien commented 1 year ago

Also, many of these AllOf statements were added specifically for the description and could be removed if we were to remove the description from the AllOf.

@RandyLevensalor @maxl2287 have you tested or can you test that the behavior of editors and tooling is then still the expected one? I thought that we needed the allofworkaround to get it done.

It works well with both Redoc and Swagger viewers. The aim of the "allOf" was to avoid having $ref as property at same level of description, but with the workaround, this is avoided.

eric-murray commented 1 year ago

Hi @maxl2287

I think you need to rebase this PR, as github is reporting a conflict. Can you do that? Thanks.

maxl2287 commented 1 year ago

Hi @maxl2287

I think you need to rebase this PR, as github is reporting a conflict. Can you do that? Thanks.

Yep, done.