fix(Servers): allow to use union type of Server and Reference objects

[char0n]

Refs #705

[sonarcloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
No Duplication information

[smoya]

I am not very sure if we should consider this a fix or rather a feature.
Considering we have examples already using this feature, I would say it can stay as bug. However, from the point of view of the spec, this is a new feature.

If it is a new feature, we could include it in 2.4 release (expected to be released in April 2022).

WDYT? cc @derberg @fmvilas

[smoya]

If it is a new feature, we could include it in 2.4 release (expected to be released in April 2022).

The reality is that our parser supports this from the very beginning, so we could consider this change just as it is, a fix.
However, It could be considered even as a breaking change, since another tooling may expect only a Server Object but now it can be both Server Object or Reference Object.
This is another example for #688.

I'm up for adding this fix into 2.4 release, what do others think @dalelane @derberg @fmvilas ?

[fmvilas]

To me, this is a typo in the document and I'd not consider it a breaking change. I know being strict, it is but it was never intended to be like this so I'd leave it as a fix.

[derberg]

I see it as a fix, but fix to the specification should be released as a patch. Since 2.4 is pretty close, best to put it into 2.4 branch than now trigger 2.3.1 as this is not critical. How doesn't it look like in spec's JSON Schema, all good there?

[smoya]

I see it as a fix, but fix to the specification should be released as a patch. Since 2.4 is pretty close, best to put it into 2.4 branch than now trigger 2.3.1 as this is not critical. How doesn't it look like in spec's JSON Schema, all good there?

We are covered as Server object has the property $ref that is a ReferenceObject. See https://github.com/asyncapi/spec-json-schemas/blob/master/schemas/2.3.0.json#L173-L175.

Is that the best approach? It is consistent with the rest of the objects? This is a topic @jonaslagoni brought in asyncapi/spec-json-schemas#167., but out of the scope of this PR.

[smoya]

@char0n would you mind changing the target base branch to 2022-04-release so we can include this fix in the 2.4 release happening next month? Thanks!

[smoya]

@char0n would you mind changing the target base branch to 2022-04-release so we can include this fix in the 2.4 release happening next month? Thanks!

Maybe any code owner can do this? cc @fmvilas @derberg @dalelane 🙏

[char0n]

@smoya sorry for delay - was a little sick. Doing it now.

[char0n]

base changed

[smoya]

LGTM! 🚀 🌔

However, you will need approval from at least one code owner. cc @dalelane @derberg @fmvilas

[dalelane]

👍

[smoya]

/rtm

[asyncapi-bot]

Hello, @smoya! 👋🏼
This PR is not up to date with the base branch and can't be merged.
Please update your branch manually with the latest version of the base branch.
PRO-TIP: Add a comment to your PR with the text: /au or /autoupdate and our bot will take care of updating the branch in the future. The only requirement for this to work is to enable Allow edits from maintainers option in your PR.
Thanks 😄

[asyncapi-bot]

🎉 This PR is included in version 2.3.1-2022-04-release.1 🎉

The release is available on GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀