Then just upgrade?
About the "not needed", it depends but not an issue by itself AFAIK.
Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 17:37, Ivan Junckes Filho <ivanjunc...@gmail.com> a
écrit :
> 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"
>>>>>>> > }
>>>>>>> > },
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > }
>>>>>>> > },
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > }
>>>>>>> > ]
>>>>>>> > }
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
