Merging swagger specs fails to use rpc comments (again)

[co3k]

This is same issue with #664 but the current version of grpc-gateway (it might be v1.6.3 or later) has this issue again.

Steps you follow to reproduce the error:

1. Create a.proto and b.proto by following Merging swagger specs fails to use rpc comments #664 (comment) instruction
2. Generate the swagger spec without merging:

protoc -I=. \
        -I=$GOPATH/src/github.com/grpc-ecosystem/grpc-gateway \
        -I=$GOPATH/src/github.com/grpc-ecosystem/grpc-gateway/third_party/googleapis \
        --swagger_out=logtostderr=true:. \
        a.proto b.proto

3. Generate the swagger spec with merging:

protoc -I=. \
        -I=$GOPATH/src/github.com/grpc-ecosystem/grpc-gateway \
        -I=$GOPATH/src/github.com/grpc-ecosystem/grpc-gateway/third_party/googleapis \
        --swagger_out=logtostderr=true,allow_merge=true:. \
        a.proto b.proto

What did you expect to happen instead:

b.swagger.json has valid summary and description for "ListBars" operation but apidocs.swagger.json doesn't.

What's your theory on why it isn't working:

I've confirmed v1.6.2 generates a valid merged swagger spec. Changes of v1.6.3 might break this feature: v1.6.2...v1.6.3

Oh, I've tried revert 8140d98 and I could get the expected behavior.

[johanbrandhorst]

Hi @co3k, sorry this has broken again 😞. I'm a little confused, did you establish that it was working without 8140d98 applied?

[co3k]

did you establish that it was working without 8140d98 applied?

Yes. I've confirmed "fix" this problem by the following step.

1. $ git checkout v1.6.3
2. $ git revert 8140d98
3. build protoc-gen-swagger
4. you will confirm "resolved" this problem

Of course we really need the 8140d98 changes but these might have some side effects which we should also fix.

[johanbrandhorst]

Hm, ideally what we need here is a way to reproduce this with a test case, so we can iterate quickly on a fix and ensure this error doesn't happen again in the future. Would you be interested in trying to fix this? I don't have the time to investigate further.

[prestonvanloon]

Has there been any update on this? It seems that it's still broken.

[johanbrandhorst]

Not that I know. I think we'll have to revert 8140d98 for now and make another release. I'll get on that.