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

OAS 3.1 - The Smaller List of Actualities #2025

Closed
8 of 9 tasks
earth2marsh opened this issue Oct 3, 2019 · 4 comments
Closed
8 of 9 tasks

OAS 3.1 - The Smaller List of Actualities #2025

earth2marsh opened this issue Oct 3, 2019 · 4 comments

Comments

@earth2marsh
Copy link
Member

@earth2marsh earth2marsh commented Oct 3, 2019

Much progress has been made since The Big List of Possibilities #1466 was created 18+ months ago! Now as we head toward an actual 3.1 release, it is time to collect together all of improvements that may not be backwards compatible. The following is a list of the issues in scope for 3.1, and they should be considered launch blockers until each related PR has been approved and merged into 3.1.0-dev.

Nb: this is not an exhaustive changelog for v3.1.0.

  • Resolve the SemVer ambiguities in #2022
  • Update Schema Objects to JSON Schema Draft 2019-09 #1977
  • Mutual Auth Certificate Support #1004
  • "Scopes" on Security Requirements for schemes other than OAuth2 #1393 #1366
  • CSV-serialized form-data arrays #2018
  • Rewording constraints on bodies in HEAD/DELETE PR #1937 #2117
  • Clarify difference in behavior between $ref inside and outside of schema object #2107
  • Post-#1977 knock-on issues #2099

We anticipate at least one release candidate (RC) on the path to the actual release.

Known issues that could be included but might not make the 3.1 release:

@handrews
Copy link
Contributor

@handrews handrews commented Oct 16, 2019

As a follow-on to #1977, there needs to be some decision over how $schema should be used in the context of OAS. See issue #2017 which uses PR #2016 (starting point for a schema for OAS 3.1) as an example.

@andig
Copy link

@andig andig commented May 30, 2020

I‘m totally missing #93. It is 6 years old and has community demand. There isn‘t even any comment as to why this would not make it to the long or short list. It also seems to be a low-hanging fruit?

@MikeRalphson
Copy link
Member

@MikeRalphson MikeRalphson commented May 30, 2020

@andig the rationale is here #622 (comment)

@andig
Copy link

@andig andig commented May 30, 2020

@andig the rationale is here #622 (comment)

I don‘t fully understand the reasoning of the response, but that‘s fine. Isn‘t it really „wont fix due to...“ then? I feel the message doesn‘t come quite across.

Forgive me for commenting here, your comment is highly appreciated.

@MikeRalphson MikeRalphson unpinned this issue Jul 8, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
5 participants