Closed cbornet closed 7 years ago
@cbornet yes, agree with you that the swagger-codegen version is useful (e.g. for troubleshooting the SDK)
I'd also like to see a dump of the options that were used.
Would anyone be opposed to creating output .swagger/VERSION
and .swagger/OPTIONS
text files for all generators?
There's an ongoing work to add a mustache tag containing the Swagger Codegen version (e.g. 2.3.0) but there are minor issues that we need to roll back the enhancement: https://github.com/swagger-api/swagger-codegen/pull/5489
Related discussion: https://github.com/swagger-api/swagger-codegen/issues/5376
@wing328 cool. It looks like that PR and issue are interested in outputting the version to templates. I opened a PR that outputs the version to .swagger/VERSION
. See #5556 and let me know what you think.
Shouldn't it be .swagger-codegen/VERSION
?
@cbornet generally, hidden folders are org-specific and not product-specific... at least in my experience. Do you think .swagger/CODEGEN_VERSION
would be better? I don't mind either way.
I could change it to .swagger-codegen/VERSION
if you think that's more appropriate.
@jimschubert I would prefer .swagger-codegen/VERSION
so as to do a little bit of growth hacking for Swagger Codegen - developers who consume the API clients or use the server stubs may do a Google search on swagger-codegen after discovering the hidden folder.
Thanks @jimschubert for the PR, which has been merged into master.
I've renamed .swagger to .swagger-codegen via fd3cae6
Thanks. I hadn't seen your comment from yesterday about moving forward with .swagger-codegen
.
It would be handy to have the swagger-codegen version that generated the code somewhere. For instance in the READMEs or in a dedicated file.