Generate spec follows alias types

[smacker]

Aliases in swagger.json present as native types.
Therefore all validation comments work as expected for them.

type Int64 int64

type MyModel struct {
    // min: 10
    IntField Int64 `json:"intField"`
}

Also fixes #649

I use go-swagger only for json generation, please let me know if it breaks anything in code generator or anywhere else.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1087 into master will increase coverage by 0.09%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1087      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   72.18%   72.28%   +0.09%     
==========================================
  Files          21       21              
  Lines        6048     6068      +20     
==========================================
+ Hits         4366     4386      +20     
  Misses       1217     1217              
  Partials      465      465

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
scan/scanner.go	73.34% <ø> (ø)	⬆️
scan/schema.go	71.92% <100%> (+0.49%)	⬆️
scan/parameters.go	77.77% <100%> (+0.57%)	⬆️
scan/classifier.go	94.28% <100%> (ø)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 2ea68fd...b70c0b4. Read the comment docs.

[smacker]

oops. master merged

[casualjim]

Perhaps something like this should get a marker annotation and be an additional feature instead of replacing what is there now for schemas. I don't know who's depending on the existing behavior.

For query/path/form params this is different though; there it would actually be the expected behavior.

[smacker]

Do I understand right that it should be like:

type Int64 int64

type MyModel struct {
    // swagger:alias
    // min: 10
    IntField Int64 `json:"intField"`
}

for any struct and behavior by default for structs annotated with swagger:params?

[casualjim]

Yes I think so, that gives people a way to choose

[smacker]

good. thanks for the clarification. I'll try to implement it later.

[smacker]

Thank you sir!

[casualjim]

yeah sorry I lost track of it. I try to follow a merge quickly policy