-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 90
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
fix: config option for operationId naming convention #149
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #149 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 93.17% 93.17%
=======================================
Files 61 61
Lines 2110 2110
=======================================
Hits 1966 1966
Misses 144 144 Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
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.
The approach is spot on, just have a few very minor tweaks for you to make
src/plugins/validation/2and3/semantic-validators/operation-ids.js
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
const customRes = validate({ resolvedSpec }, customConfig); | ||
expect(customRes.errors.length).toEqual(0); | ||
expect(customRes.warnings.length).toEqual(0); |
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 appreciate the thought here, but these added checks are unnecessary. We can assume the message carrier logic works as it has it's own tests.
Also, just for future reference, it is best practice to test different behaviors in entirely different tests (different it
functions), rather than adding checks for multiple behaviors within the same test.
bf837c9
to
e60434e
Compare
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.
Looks good! 👍
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.
Changes look good but we need more documentation. I should have caught that in my previous review
- modified files in order to include a config option for operationId
e60434e
to
a2e7011
Compare
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.
Looks good! 👍
## [0.24.1](v0.24.0...v0.24.1) (2020-03-04) ### Bug Fixes * make operationId naming convention check configurable ([#149](#149)) ([c8b07ff](c8b07ff))
🎉 This PR is included in version 0.24.1 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Naming conventions for operationId should be configurable.
Change:
Related: Issue 148