3 ms·

Having used the TypeScript client generator and contributed the F#/Giraffe and F#/Azure Functions server generators, I disagree :) Do you literally mean unusab

Having used the TypeScript client generator and contributed the F#/Giraffe and F#/Azure Functions server generators, I disagree :) Do you literally mean unusable, or it just didn't fit your stylistic preference?

smt88 7y ago
For some languages, it doesn't even compile. For others, there are OAS features (e.g. allOf, anyOf) that weren't handled correctly. I actually still haven't found a single implementation of a OAS consumer (mock server, type generator, etc.) that implements the whole spec correctly.
- nmfisher 7y ago
  OK, well it's certainly not intended to support the whole OAS spec (and indeed, the ones I contributed certainly don't, just the parts I needed at that specific point in time). This is particularly the case with OAS2->3. The intention is that people use the generators as a base, and if there's something you need that's not implemented, you write the implementation and contribute it back. No single person is going to implement 100% of the spec in their day job, so as an open source project, coverage will be patchy until enough people extend the implementation to cover their own API surface area. I don't think "it doesn't cover the whole spec" is fair grounds for criticism (though out-of-the-box generator errors are another story).
  - smt88 7y ago
    > I don't think "it doesn't cover the whole spec" is fair grounds for criticism (though out-of-the-box generator errors are another story) A spec is useless if it's not fully implemented by any library. Also, I'm fine with imperfect FOSS, but it's frustrating to not know that implementation is incomplete or what exactly is missing. You end up doing trial and error. All I'm saying is that OAS generators are not net time savers, which you supported yourself by saying that sometimes fixing an implementation is up to the user. That's not a criticism of any person, just a fact.

smt88 7y ago

For some languages, it doesn't even compile. For others, there are OAS features (e.g. allOf, anyOf) that weren't handled correctly. I actually still haven't found a single implementation of a OAS consumer (mock server, type generator, etc.) that implements the whole spec correctly.

nmfisher 7y ago
OK, well it's certainly not intended to support the whole OAS spec (and indeed, the ones I contributed certainly don't, just the parts I needed at that specific point in time). This is particularly the case with OAS2->3. The intention is that people use the generators as a base, and if there's something you need that's not implemented, you write the implementation and contribute it back. No single person is going to implement 100% of the spec in their day job, so as an open source project, coverage will be patchy until enough people extend the implementation to cover their own API surface area. I don't think "it doesn't cover the whole spec" is fair grounds for criticism (though out-of-the-box generator errors are another story).
- smt88 7y ago
  > I don't think "it doesn't cover the whole spec" is fair grounds for criticism (though out-of-the-box generator errors are another story) A spec is useless if it's not fully implemented by any library. Also, I'm fine with imperfect FOSS, but it's frustrating to not know that implementation is incomplete or what exactly is missing. You end up doing trial and error. All I'm saying is that OAS generators are not net time savers, which you supported yourself by saying that sometimes fixing an implementation is up to the user. That's not a criticism of any person, just a fact.