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 <ivanjunc...@gmail.com> 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 <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > 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 <ivanjunc...@gmail.com> >> 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 < >>> ivanjunc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> No I didn't, I will have a look. thanks >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:08 AM Romain Manni-Bucau < >>>> rmannibu...@gmail.com> 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 < >>>>> 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" >>>>> > } >>>>> > }, >>>>> > >>>>> > } >>>>> > }, >>>>> > >>>>> > } >>>>> > ] >>>>> > } >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>
