search

sylvainlaurent / swagger-validator-maven-plugin

A maven plugin that validates swagger files in yaml and json formats
Apache License 2.0
11 stars 6 forks source link

Issue #21, #22, #23, #24 fixes #25

Closed giuliopulina closed 4 years ago

giuliopulina commented 5 years ago

Upgraded libraries to support external references import without providing ./ prefix in paths, resolved some issues related to produces/consumes validation, upgraded some maven libraries and bytebuddy (along with a small code change) to make the project usable within java 11.

@khoma @oyeli

giuliopulina commented 5 years ago

it's been some time since I've opened the PR :) any news?

rantoniuk commented 4 years ago

Those fixes are quite needed, @sylvainlaurent would you have some time to review and release new version?

giuliopulina commented 4 years ago

@sylvainlaurent will you be able to review this PR? By the way, if you're not interested anymore in this project (or, simply, you don't have enough time), I can propose myself as a collaborator

giuliopulina commented 4 years ago

As more than six months have passed, I'm closing this PR and in the next days I will release the changes on Maven Central from my fork https://github.com/giuliopulina/swagger-validator-maven-plugin

giuliopulina commented 4 years ago

For whom is interested, I published changes contained in this PR into this project:

<groupId>com.github.giuliopulina</groupId>
<artifactId>swagger-validator-maven-plugin</artifactId>
<version>1.0.0</version>

https://github.com/giuliopulina/swagger-validator-maven-plugin

rantoniuk commented 4 years ago

Thanks @giuliopulina for this work and comment, that's really valuable and I'm interested in using your changes. One remark: I think it would be better to stick to semantic versioning, so assuming that you based your changes on the newest version of this plugin, you should publish version 1.2.6-giuliopulina (or even 1.2.7-giuliopulina) as your artifact, so that it is clear which "feature-set" it is basing on.

giuliopulina commented 4 years ago

I think you are right, probably but I'm not sure if putting "giuliopulina" in the version number will help much or is the right thing to do. From what I read (I never did something similar in the past) resetting the version number when forking is the most common approach. Maybe using a meaningful classifier could help? Any suggestion?

rantoniuk commented 4 years ago

For me it is unclear to reset version number on forking, because it will make it harder for anyone (including you) to track later which feature-set are you on in your fork. I generally try to follow https://semver.org/ description and in this case I'd try to use https://semver.org/#spec-item-10 (assuming of course the changes from your fork will finally land in the upstream one day :-) ) - hope that helps!