Hi Girish, I don't remember this having been discussed before. I like the idea and the proposed "implementation". I don't think it's a too big change, it's an improvement for me.
About Pritam's remark for GenericValue, if it may help: those are Maps [Map<String, Object>] and considered as such in SOAP. Thanks Jacques Le 17/07/2020 à 07:21, Pritam Kute a écrit :
Hello Girish, IMO, the option which you have suggested looks good in case if we want to leverage upon the existing service definitions for creating the API documentation. I also think that this could be a good addition to OFBiz in the developer perspective, as right now, it is very difficult to guess the content of the Map/List attributes seeing at service definition. For the attribute type GenericValue, we can skip the nested structure. Kind Regards, -- Pritam Kute On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 5:21 PM Girish Vasmatkar < girish.vasmat...@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:Hey Guys, While working on OpenApi integration as well as GraphQL implementation, I faced issues on how to automatically document request/response JSON structure for service attributes that were of Collection types (Map, List etc). For simple types, it is just plain easy but when it comes to Map/Lists, you have to know what exactly is inside them to be able to convey properly in the OpenApi schema. I was thinking to may be try to introduce nested attributes in service definition such that if the attribute type is Map/List, you can actually specify what goes inside that attribute - <attribute name=*"header"* type=*"Map"* mode=*"IN"* optional=*"true"* > <attribute name=*"xy"* type=*"Integer"* default-value=*"0"* /> <attribute name=*"xyz"* type=*"String"* default-value=*"test"*/> </attribute> With this change, it becomes possible to generate the schema for the service attribute, Where as if we don't have this option, we can't possibly indicate what the structure of the "header" key is going to be if it was represented in JSON format. Of course, this change will only help documentation and GraphQL implementation and that there is very little case for it to benefit a general OFBiz service call. Any thoughts or comments on this? Is this too big of a change (impact wise and not coding perspective) to avoid it and consider something else? Has this been discussed before? Best, Girish
