-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 117
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
[Actix plugin] Add random prefix to definition in API spec #358
Closed
TobiasDeBruijn
wants to merge
2
commits into
paperclip-rs:master
from
TobiasDeBruijn:add-random-prefix-to-definition
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
not sure this is the right thing to do here, otherwise we're generating different specs on different builds?
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.
That is a good point. That is indeed the case here. For what I've read and heard, it's not possible to get the fully qualified path in a proc macro.
Do you have any suggestions for another solution?
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.
Even a module name is probably not ideal as we want the type name to be named somewhat appropriately, since it's part of an API - what about a way to explicitly rename the openApi type? eg:
It would also be helpful if we could issue a warning or error if we encounter a duplicate when stitching up the spec.
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.
That could also definitely be a good option, though I don't know how to implement this myself. Could we maybe compute a 'hash' of sorts and use that as prefix? That way the name is consistent and only changes when the struct itself does.
This means a user isn't required to rename every struct, which gets tedious, but it doesnt leave everything random either.
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.
I have figured out a way to get the fully qualified path, so that is now too an option
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.
How would the type names look like?
That would be better than random, but that's still something we wouldn't want to do by default. Maybe we could have an attribute enables using that fqp?
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.
I haven't generated it out yet, but by default we get e.g foo::bar::Request I believe, but we could omit those double colons (it probably does not work well with yaml, so we should I think), or replace them with e.g hyphens.
An attribute that enables it would be the best solution I think, additionally we could stick it behind a feature flag too.