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