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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

With AMF 4.1.3, the generated amf graph has inconsistent reference node ids though the content is same #528

Closed
1 of 4 tasks
unandyala opened this issue Jul 14, 2020 · 2 comments
Closed
1 of 4 tasks

With AMF 4.1.3, the generated amf graph has inconsistent reference node ids though the content is same #528

unandyala opened this issue Jul 14, 2020 · 2 comments
Assignees
@nschejtman
Labels
internal issue Internal issue created to track this case

Comments

@unandyala
Copy link

  • I'm submitting a ...

    • bug report
    • feature request
    • question
    • other

  • What is the current behavior?
    I have two ramls with same content except that one raml is missing an endpoint
    image (2)

With AMF 4.1.3, reference node IDs between the ramls are different though the content is same
image (3)

Note: With AMF 4..1.2, node Ids were consistent
image (4)

  • What is the expected behavior?
    Node Ids needs to be consistent when the content is same

  • What is the motivation/use case for changing the behavior? (for feature requests)
    We are developing a differencing tool to compare two RAML specs using AMF graphs

  • Please tell us about your environment:

    • AMF Version: 4.1.3
    • AMF Distribution: JS
    • Operating System: macOS
@nschejtman
Copy link
Contributor

APIMF-2263 has been created to track internally this issue in our Jira.

@nschejtman nschejtman added the internal issue Internal issue created to track this case label Jul 14, 2020
@nschejtman nschejtman self-assigned this Jul 21, 2020
@nschejtman
Copy link
Contributor

This issue has been fixed and will be available in our next release (July 29th 2020)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@nschejtman nschejtman

Labels
internal issue Internal issue created to track this case
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@nschejtman @unandyala