Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix Go client generation #200

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Sep 23, 2019
Merged

Fix Go client generation #200

merged 3 commits into from
Sep 23, 2019

Conversation

mraerino
Copy link
Member

Closes #170

Summary

Updates to Go 1.13

Uses a workaround to ignore tags when generating the Go client.
Generating the Go client while the operations have different tags attached means generating a different package for every tag. This breaks the API for all users of the client because they will most likely rely on types for request params even if they are just using the porcelain package.

I opened #199 to track this issue.

@mraerino mraerino requested a review from rybit September 23, 2019 18:59
@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Sep 23, 2019

Deploy preview for open-api ready!

Built with commit 0cb5a13

https://deploy-preview-200--open-api.netlify.com

@mraerino mraerino merged commit da4c216 into master Sep 23, 2019
@mraerino mraerino deleted the fix/go-generation branch September 23, 2019 19:47
@ehmicky
Copy link
Contributor

ehmicky commented Sep 24, 2019

Thanks a lot for this @mraerino!

Three questions:

  • are we always sure the Makefile will be executed on a machine that has sh (e.g. some Windows machines don't) and jq installed?
  • we are already both validating and "flattening" the swagger.yml and converting it to swagger.json as part of npm run convert. This could be used instead of go-swagger validate and flatten methods?
  • likewise we could remove the tags properties from that convert.js method, and output it to a second file swagger_go.json?

@mraerino
Copy link
Member Author

Those are valid remarks. Can we move this to #199?

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.

3 participants