api success schemas

[kukicvladimir]

Hi,
i have done more changes in this pull request

• api success blocks are generated as success responses,
• there was an issue with same URL and different method for example GET /user, POST /user they were merged as one method instead of two.
• also added option to parse path and body params with
• @apiParam (body) {Number} id Users unique ID.
• @apiParam (path) {Number} id Users unique ID.

Check this and let me know what do you think.
Thanks,
Vladimir

[fsbahman]

Hi Vladimir,

Sorry for late reply, Work demand was high 😄
Could you do me a favor, after I look at your changes it looks like you've made them on your version, Could you resubmit them on the latest version, right now I have a merge conflict. as an example extractDefinitions function has been removed.
By the way It looks like your editor changes tabs into spaces, if it is possible keep them as tabs.
Thanks and Regards,

[fsbahman]

Hi,
Today I've merged a few fixes you might want to have a look.

[filipefigcorreia]

Hi folks. I'd love to have these changes merged in, as apidocs-swagger doesn't accept my documentation as input without it. Anything I can do to make this possible? I'm afraid I'm not very proficient with javascript :-\

[fsbahman]

I can have a look later this weekend if I can make the merge-able version out of it. Work load is high these days.

[lotas]

Hi there,
can we please get this PR merged somehow?
Stumbled upon the same issue, where parameters and success responses were mixed. Tried out the proposed solution from @kukicvladimir and it works perfectly.

Thanks!

[fsbahman]

Hi, I will look into the open PRs this weekend, Thanks 👍

[lotas]

Not trying to be pushy :)
But is there a slight possibility of getting this merged?

Thanks a lot!

[kukicvladimir]

Hello, I have checked out both versions, and tried to compare them (again). All the changes i did were made on version which was active in April 2015. I've been using the package on the project that i've been working at the time and had to adjust it on the fly. I have submitted PR in June (without checking if there were any major changes in the code). Unfortunately there were a lot of changes in the period of 2 months and I never had time to rewrite it on my side since the branch did everything I needed. It is not possible to merge it and the branch needs to be rewritten (implemented again). If I could help it would be nice to have a touchbase with @fsbahman so we could schedule this for further release. I can not promise when will I be able to do it, but I would love to help on this. Regards, V

…

On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 at 15:05, Yaraslau Kurmyza ***@***.***> wrote: Not trying to be pushy :) But is there a slight possibility of getting this merged? Thanks a lot! — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#5 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEblTHxVvoM2Om4kzY0xKbiDuywPk4FIks5uXSkbgaJpZM4Eqecu> .

-- Srdačan pozdrav / Best Regards, Vladimir Kukic

[lotas]

Thanks for the heads up @kukicvladimir !
I see what the problem is, and I'd probably stay with your fork for now.
Luckily my project is very small, so I'd probably switch to writing yaml definition from scratch.
Cheers and thanks again!

[fsbahman]

I've published a new version of the package:
v0.3.0 with all the changes from your fork @kukicvladimir there were a lot of changes which I could not resolve, I will merge them when time permits, if you want you can keep the PR open. Thanks.
I merget your changes into this branch: kukic.