feat: Add support for displaying operationId in the sidebar #1927
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Rycochet
changed the title
Oprysk
approved these changes
Mar 23, 2022
|
@Rycochet Thanks for your contribution! |
AlexVarchuk
approved these changes
Mar 23, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What/Why/How?
As with most companies that use OpenAPI we make use of the
operationIdto actually know what code to call through auto-generated code, which made this library unusable for generating documentation despite all the other benefits.Simply added an option to the enum arguments to allow it to display the
operationId- which is marked as optional in the spec, so provided a fallback to thepath(the Summary is not useful in technical documentation), and added to the documentation.No testing has been added for this - as I couldn't find any tests for the already existing functionality - the already existing tests have enough problems that my best comment is "this didn't break anything that wasn't already broken".
Check yourself