Skip to content

fix build with kin-openapi 0.61.0#348

Merged
2 commits merged into
oapi-codegen:masterfrom
mgabeler-lee-6rs:fix/kin-openapi-0.61.0
May 18, 2021
Merged

fix build with kin-openapi 0.61.0#348
2 commits merged into
oapi-codegen:masterfrom
mgabeler-lee-6rs:fix/kin-openapi-0.61.0

Conversation

@mgabeler-lee-6rs

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Addresses changes from getkin/kin-openapi#351

@ondrejbudai

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Changes looking good. Can we get a review from a maintainer and a new release? Thanks! :)

@stellirin

Copy link
Copy Markdown

I'm guessing there's a good (legal) reason for kin-openapi to do this, I suggest swagger should be fully purged from this repo too, not just make the minimal changes to adapt to upstream.

@mgabeler-lee-6rs

mgabeler-lee-6rs commented May 6, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I'm guessing there's a good (legal) reason for kin-openapi to do this

I was wondering the same thing, but the kin PR makes no mention of any specific motivation for it. Esp. since the spec itself requires using the "swagger" name in fields, I wonder if this was either just paranoia, or desiring to be generic in the naming. Either way, I will ask the kin folks to comment here to hopefully replace speculation with information :)

I suggest swagger should be fully purged from this repo too, not just make the minimal changes to adapt to upstream.

This certainly would be safer, though I wonder if it would be reasonable to do in separate steps?


Edit: :sigh: this may be going to change again? getkin/kin-openapi#358

@mgabeler-lee-6rs

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Added #354 which includes the changes here, and also makes an attempt to remove the Swagger name from all APIs

@fenollp

fenollp commented May 6, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Hi, kin-openapi maintainer here.
Swagger is a name trademarked by an entity (SmartBear) other than the Linux Foundation.
OpenAPIv2 (as well as v1) do have a field named swagger and for legacy reasons it's here for good and free of conflicts. OpenAPIv3 does not, though.

Please don't call us paranoid. I already spend enough time looking over my shoulder.

@mgabeler-lee-6rs

mgabeler-lee-6rs commented May 6, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Please don't call us paranoid. I already spend enough time looking over my shoulder.

Apologies if my wording came across poorly. What I meant was that I wasn't sure if this was a pro-active change made to err on the side of safety, or if there had been a specific request / letter from the Swagger/SmartBear folks to not use their name in your library.

@lukestoward

lukestoward commented May 9, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

I came looking for this PR as I have a project in which I attempted to update all of the dependencies, only for it to fail due to the generated spec using properties defined by kin-openapi v0.53.0 and the update command attempting to build my source code using v0.61.0. I worked around this by updating all other dependencies individually, which isn't a big issue, but this PR would allow me to update everything in one go once again. 😄

@thenewwazoo

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Another +1 for merging this. The instructions as written currently don't work.

@ghost ghost merged commit 961f811 into oapi-codegen:master May 18, 2021
@mgabeler-lee-6rs mgabeler-lee-6rs deleted the fix/kin-openapi-0.61.0 branch May 18, 2021 23:31
vlastahajek pushed a commit to bonitoo-io/oapi-codegen that referenced this pull request Aug 9, 2021
* fix build with kin-openapi 0.61.0

Addresses changes from getkin/kin-openapi#351

* go mod tidy
adrianpk pushed a commit to foorester/oapi-codegen that referenced this pull request Jan 16, 2024
* fix build with kin-openapi 0.61.0

Addresses changes from getkin/kin-openapi#351

* go mod tidy
adrianpk added a commit to foorester/oapi-codegen that referenced this pull request May 31, 2024
* fix build with kin-openapi 0.61.0

Addresses changes from getkin/kin-openapi#351

* go mod tidy
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants