-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 54
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat: security support added to operation and operationTrait #189
feat: security support added to operation and operationTrait #189
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Welcome to AsyncAPI. Thanks a lot for creating your first pull request. Please check out our contributors guide useful for opening a pull request.
Keep in mind there are also other channels you can use to interact with AsyncAPI community. For more details check out this issue.
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! |
Thanks for the PR @LokeshRishi! would you mind changing the title of this PR adding a prefix to be compliant with Conventional Commits? |
@@ -616,6 +616,12 @@ | |||
"operationId": { | |||
"type": "string" | |||
}, | |||
"security": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would it make sense to extract this into a new definition called SecurityRequirements
or similar? Then you will just need to use it by "$ref": "#/definitions/SecurityRequirements"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would it make sense to extract this into a new definition called
SecurityRequirements
or similar? Then you will just need to use it by"$ref": "#/definitions/SecurityRequirements"
Hi @smoya - Its an array of SecurityRequirements. Not sure if just indicating an array of a complex definition warrants a new definition. If so, such a pattern would need to apply consistently to all similar constructs that refer to an array (tags for example). Not sure it carries much benefits. At least for me - not creating a new definition but just knowing its an array of an existing definition is easier. Up to you folks :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fair enough 👍 I agree we would need to be consistent and lot of changes will need to be applied.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, however we need a +1 of a Code Owner.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@fmvilas only your approval is missing
I put asyncapi/spec#584 on Stage 2,
once we merge this and parser PR, then we can set Stage 3 and merge
/rtm |
Hello, @smoya! 👋🏼 |
/au |
🎉 This PR is included in version 2.14.0-2022-04-release.1 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
2 passing (789ms)
----------|---------|----------|---------|---------|-------------------
Description
Updates to include 'security' at operation and operationTrait level.
Related issue(s)
asyncapi/spec#584