fixes #398 and adds more tests to prove #399 #428
Conversation
| @@ -329,7 +333,7 @@ export class TypeResolver { | |||
|
|
|||
| if (typeNode.kind === ts.SyntaxKind.ArrayType) { | |||
| const arrayType = typeNode as ts.ArrayTypeNode; | |||
| return this.getAnyTypeName(arrayType.elementType) + '[]'; | |||
| return this.getAnyTypeName(arrayType.elementType) + 'Array'; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@WoH this is the change that I thought could be breaking for some users if they were relying on getting back GenericRequestTypeAliasModel1[] they would now get GenericRequestTypeAliasModel1Array
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see. But I have more of these, if you're not sure about breaking changes, I think we can make it worth the 3.0 release 😉
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@WoH would I be overthinking it if I added a swagger.config parameter called noSymbolsInRefNames that would allow @Asterix112 (and anyone else who has stricter needs for their ref names) to opt into this?
And then when we get to version 3.0 we can remove this noSymbolsInRefNames.
The reason why I'm resistant to going to a 3.0 version right now is (a) Asterix appears to need this soon and (b) there are a lot of great features that we can release without going to 3.0 (like your union PR, and the PR that fixes auto controller generation).
I appreciate any and all thoughts. Thank you for this collaboration @WoH. It's a lot of fun! :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[ ] in the $ref wasn't ever valid, was it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wow, you are correct @WoH. It gives this error in SwaggerEditor: ref values must be RFC3986-compliant percent-encoded URIs.
So we're safe to make this change since it's a true bug fix.
| }, | ||
| genericNested2: (propertyName, propertySchema) => { | ||
| expect(propertySchema.$ref).to.eq('#/components/schemas/GenericRequestArrayTypeAliasModel2'); | ||
| genericNestedArrayKeyword1: (propertyName, propertySchema) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@WoH I had to rename genericNested2 to differentiate between the [] tests. I also added genericMultiNested to see if we would have an issue with multiple levels of generics. Turns out that we don't because your function is recursive. Nice work! :)
… we have extensive unit test coverage there.
fixes #398 and adds more tests to prove #399