Skip to content
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

Feature Considerations for v.Next generators #2448

Closed
fearthecowboy opened this issue Jul 17, 2017 · 7 comments
Closed

Feature Considerations for v.Next generators #2448

fearthecowboy opened this issue Jul 17, 2017 · 7 comments
Labels
design-discussion An area of design currently under discussion and open to team and community feedback.

Comments

@fearthecowboy
Copy link
Member

fearthecowboy commented Jul 17, 2017

@begoldsm
Copy link
Contributor

@fearthecowboy nice! Part of the "standard operation class names" for node should include this issue: Azure/azure-sdk-for-node#2193

@fearthecowboy
Copy link
Member Author

@begoldsm Yeah, naming is one of those things that's going to get handled a lot differently in vNext generators. The current modeler/generators is just this side of nightmarish when it comes to doing that right. I suspect we're going to have a long conversation about that.

@olydis
Copy link
Contributor

olydis commented Oct 3, 2017

@fearthecowboy can't edit your comment anymore!

New ask: writeOnly. There are very valid scenarios where you wanna only send something ("required" for sending!) but not receive it (KeyVault secrets for example). Currently, there's just no sane way to model that:

  • making it required is a violation of the Swagger spec since then it's also expected on responses (which we apparently don't validate so far which is why KeyVault marked it as required)
  • making it non-required gives bad UX since then the signature doesn't force you to send it

@fearthecowboy
Copy link
Member Author

@olydis -- maybe we can make something work with https://github.com/Azure/autorest/blob/41c3ebf69e2903497ac32a430c27a972a03acb16/docs/extensions/readme.md#x-ms-mutability (it's purely cosmetic at the moment...)

@olydis
Copy link
Contributor

olydis commented Oct 3, 2017

@fearthecowboy right either that, or implement writeOnly since that's what OpenAPI 3.0 does (or at least implement x-ms-mutability in a way that's compatible with that), https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/master/versions/3.0.0.md#fixed-fields-20

@asvishnyakov
Copy link

asvishnyakov commented Nov 1, 2017

@fearthecowboy @olydis Is there any progress about #609 (Generated C# code should be decorated with GeneratedCodeAttribute attribute)? It's very useful: for example, it tells analyzers to exclude AutoRest-generated code from analyze process.

@MiYanni MiYanni added the design-discussion An area of design currently under discussion and open to team and community feedback. label Nov 7, 2019
@fearthecowboy
Copy link
Member Author

(closing, will prep issues for vNext soon)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
design-discussion An area of design currently under discussion and open to team and community feedback.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants