Initial Release #1
Conversation
dbanty
left a comment
dbanty
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the biggest suggestion is for us to use and recommend (in the example) versioning. IDK if GHA supports semantic versions or if we're just only going to update that for breaking changes.
README.md
Outdated
| # Use the action to generate a client package | ||
| # This uses all defaults (latest version, openapi.json in the current workspace, no configuration) | ||
| - name: Generate Python Client | ||
| uses: triaxtec/openapi-python-client-action@main |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we're going to publish this we should version it and do @v1 instead I think. I've seen several times that that is best practice so if we make breaking changes we don't break anyone's CI.
| @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ | |||
| name: "Generate A Python Client Package From An OpenAPI file" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this the name that gets displayed in the marketplace? Or just in Actions when running?
If the first, this should be "openapi-python-client Action" or something. If the second, maybe just "Generate Python Client"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The former; My thinking was to make it a tad more search friendly (on the actions marketplace that is) so that its a bit discoverable + easy to get what it does just from reading the name. That seems to be the standard way of doing it based off of what I've seen in the marketplace - unless its a multipurpose/function action the name briefly tells you what it does. I think it could do with being shortened however - how do you feel about just "Generate Python Client From An OpenAPI File"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or "Generate Python Client from OpenAPI"?
entrypoint.sh
Outdated
| config_arg="" | ||
| fi | ||
|
|
||
| pipx run ${version_arg} openapi-python-client ${config_arg} generate --path ${openapi_file_path} No newline at end of file |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might be better to pipx install this in the Dockerfile, then reuse the same version? Seems unlikely that someone would generate multiple clients in a single CI pipeline but we've done weirder things.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
AFAIK theres no way to use inputs inside the Dockerfile unfortunately :(
Co-authored-by: Dylan Anthony <43723790+dbanty@users.noreply.github.com>
No description provided.