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