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

1.0.0 #32

Open
idanto opened this issue May 10, 2018 · 4 comments
Open

1.0.0 #32

idanto opened this issue May 10, 2018 · 4 comments

Comments

@idanto
Copy link
Contributor

idanto commented May 10, 2018

This we should do before 1.0.0:

  • Change the middleware loading to be synchronous
  • Check for missing swagger features. for example, the use of patterns (regex) and probably some types
  • support OpenAPI 3.0 - not sure it's a must.

@kibertoad feel free to add your thoughts

@kibertoad
Copy link
Collaborator

OpenAPI 3.0 sounds more like 2.0.0 stuff since it will likely require further componentization of the code and will require quite a bit of effort.
Synchronous middleware loading is definitely nice, I'll look into this.
How do you suggest to approach investigating for missing swagger features?

I would also suggest doing as ES6 pass over code to use things like let/const, arrow functions etc (given that we only support Node 6+).
Also maybe integrating prettier would be a good idea.

@idanto
Copy link
Contributor Author

idanto commented May 29, 2018

I agree with you about the OpenAPI 3.0 and it will be great to do the alignment for ES6 syntax.

An approach to investigating missing swagger features is a good question.
I would search around:

  1. Supported data types
  2. Validation for parameters
  3. Security Defenitions

I think those are the core features that related to input validation.

The approach in my opinion should be to start writing tests for each of the keywords and see the behavior, In case it is not as expected we can open an issue and fix it.

We also know that we miss support in multiple swagger file but that's a known issue that I don't think we should address now

@kobik
Copy link
Collaborator

kobik commented Jun 16, 2019

i believe that everything described by you two so far, besides sync init shouldn't require a new major release.

i actually see it more like a roadmap.

@kibertoad
Copy link
Collaborator

I agree, it was more of a brainstorm regarding what this library needs to be feature-complete, rather than hard prereq.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants