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 <ivanjunc...@gmail.com> 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"
>           }
>         },
>
>       }
>     },
>
>   }
>   ]
> }
>

Reply via email to