Skip to content
GitLab
Projects Groups Snippets
  • /
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Sign in / Register
  • O openapi-generator
  • Project information
    • Project information
    • Activity
    • Labels
    • Members
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
  • Issues 3,476
    • Issues 3,476
    • List
    • Boards
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge requests 402
    • Merge requests 402
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Deployments
    • Deployments
    • Environments
    • Releases
  • Packages and registries
    • Packages and registries
    • Package Registry
    • Infrastructure Registry
  • Monitor
    • Monitor
    • Incidents
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • Value stream
    • CI/CD
    • Repository
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Snippets
    • Snippets
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • OpenAPI Tools
  • openapi-generator
  • Merge requests
  • !12681

Fix regression of nullability on allOf with $ref

  • Review changes

  • Download
  • Email patches
  • Plain diff
Closed Administrator requested to merge github/fork/stjernegard/fix-10780 into master Jun 23, 2022
  • Overview 2
  • Commits 2
  • Pipelines 0
  • Changes 30

Created by: stjernegard

I believe this fixes #10780, though there's some differences in our examples, so I can't be entirely sure. I can reproduce this regression between 5.2.1 and 5.3.0, so it probably is.

There's possibly a deeper problem here, as I'm not sure if these composed types are supposed to be handled by updatePropertyForAnyType(). But since they currently are, I kept my changes to a minimum. I found that ModelUtils.isNullable() returns the correct value here, as it recognises that composed types are only nullable in some cases and not all cases, as updatePropertyForAnyType() otherwise suggests.

An object with the definition below would currently be generated with a nullable value3 property. I believe that's a bug, as that is not the default behaviour with either value1 or value2 in my example.

---
openapi: 3.0.3
info:
  title: Foo
  version: v1
servers:
- url: /
  description: Foo
paths:
  /foo:
    get:
      responses:
        "200":
          description: OK
components:
  schemas:
    Bar:
      required:
        - value1
        - value2
        - value3
      type: object
      properties:
        value1:
          type: string
        value2:
          allOf:
            - type: string
        value3:
          allOf:
            - $ref: '#/components/schemas/Foo'
    Foo:
      type: string

(Swift is my language of choice for the example, but this change is not specific to any language, as the change is in DefaultCodegen.java)

Before my change:

[...]
public struct Bar: Codable, JSONEncodable, Hashable {

    public var value1: String
    public var value2: String
    public var value3: String?
[...]

After my change:

[...]
public struct Bar: Codable, JSONEncodable, Hashable {

    public var value1: String
    public var value2: String
    public var value3: String
[...]

PR checklist

  • Read the contribution guidelines.
  • Pull Request title clearly describes the work in the pull request and Pull Request description provides details about how to validate the work. Missing information here may result in delayed response from the community.
  • Run the following to build the project and update samples:
    ./mvnw clean package 
    ./bin/generate-samples.sh
    ./bin/utils/export_docs_generators.sh
    Commit all changed files. This is important, as CI jobs will verify all generator outputs of your HEAD commit as it would merge with master. These must match the expectations made by your contribution. You may regenerate an individual generator by passing the relevant config(s) as an argument to the script, for example ./bin/generate-samples.sh bin/configs/java*. For Windows users, please run the script in Git BASH.
  • File the PR against the correct branch: master (6.0.1) (patch release), 6.1.x (breaking changes with fallbacks), 7.0.x (breaking changes without fallbacks)
  • If your PR is targeting a particular programming language, @mention the technical committee members, so they are more likely to review the pull request.

Since this is not targeting a particular language, I hope it's okay I ping the core team instead. cc @wing328 @jimschubert @cbornet @jmini @etherealjoy @spacether

Assignee
Assign to
Reviewers
Request review from
Time tracking
Source branch: github/fork/stjernegard/fix-10780