Support for Swagger 2.0 requests #101
Conversation
analogue
commented
Apr 21, 2015
analogue
commented
- Swagger 1.2 is not in the code path at all.
- tween20.py created to isolate Swagger 2.0 support
- Manually tested using example_happyhour and works wonderfully
- using requirements.txt for deps until packaged on pypi
…ustom renderer for /swagger.json since it has embedded jsonrefs - fixed py27 test failures.
|
|
1 similar comment
|
|
|
@dnephin Think this is ready to go on the request side. I have another branch which is for the response side of things. Let me know what you think. |
| 'validate_path', | ||
| 'exclude_paths', | ||
| 'exclude_routes', | ||
| ] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks identical to the one in tween.py, (except for spec vs schema name). Could we use the one in tween.py for now, and rename it to schema to spec at some point later?
|
I think this looks good. With the proposed changes it could be just three functions ( |
|
|
1 similar comment
|
|
1 similar comment
|
|
| validator_map) | ||
| validation_context=validation_context, | ||
| validator_map=op_or_validators_map, | ||
| op=op_or_validators_map) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is passing the same argument in twice, why not just use positional args and pass it in once?
|
|
| validate_response(response, validator_map.response) | ||
| swagger_handler.handle_response( | ||
| response, | ||
| validator=getattr(op_or_validators_map, 'response', None)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we could remove this getattr by adjusting the validate_response() to take the op_or_validators_map instead, but that seems fine to wait until the response branch.
|
lgtm |
Support for Swagger 2.0 requests
