Added support for @x- attributes on security definition

[pmorelli92]

Relates to issue #970.

Before this PR the only @x- attribute supported on the security definition was the hardcoded x-tokenName. After this PR all the @x- attributes that are parsed in the same block than the security definition are going to be added.

Added extra logic for not adding twice the @x- attributes that are present on the security definition and removed the hardcoded case scenario for token name as well.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #971 (32bcbba) into master (505d4f1) will increase coverage by 0.03%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #971      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   88.12%   88.15%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files           8        8              
  Lines        1869     1874       +5     
==========================================
+ Hits         1647     1652       +5     
  Misses        127      127              
  Partials       95       95              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
parser.go	86.81% <100.00%> (+0.07%)	⬆️

---

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 505d4f1...32bcbba. Read the comment docs.

[pmorelli92]

@sdghchj @ubogdan Hi guys! Sorry to bother you with the tag, but I would like to know if you can give some love to this PR. Unfortunately, at the company I am working, I have a deadline soon and I would need to know if I can use this dependency or not. Sorry again

[ubogdan]

@pmorelli92 I need a working CI build with additional tests added in order to see both "Travis" and "Codecov" passing in order to take a decision on it.

Would you please push another small update so I can make a clue where we are at?

[pmorelli92]

Done! @ubogdan

[ubogdan]

LGTM

[ubogdan]

@pmorelli92 Thanks for your contribution.