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

Further clarify link operation ambiguity (3.0.4) #4078

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 12, 2024
Merged

Further clarify link operation ambiguity (3.0.4) #4078

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
7 changes: 4 additions & 3 deletions versions/3.0.4.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2310,9 +2310,10 @@ For computing links and providing instructions to execute them, a [runtime expre
This object MAY be extended with [Specification Extensions](#specification-extensions).

A linked operation MUST be identified using either an `operationRef` or `operationId`.
In the case of an `operationId`, it MUST be unique and resolved in the scope of the OpenAPI description.
Because of the potential for name clashes, the `operationRef` syntax is preferred
for multi-document OpenAPI descriptions.
The identified or reference operation MUST be unique, and in the case of an `operationId`, it MUST be resolved within the scope of the OpenAPI Description (OAD).
Because of the potential for name clashes, the `operationRef` syntax is preferred for multi-document OADs.
However, because use of an operation depends on its URL path template in the [Paths Object](#paths-object), operations from any [Path Item Object](#path-item-object) that is referenced multiple times within the OAD cannot be resolved unambiguously.
ralfhandl marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
In such ambiguous cases, the resulting behavior is implementation-defined and MAY result in an error.

Note that it is not possible to provide a constant value to `parameters` that matches the syntax of a runtime expression.
It is possible to have ambiguous parameter names, e.g. `name: "id", in: "path"` and `name: "path.id", in: "query"`; this is NOT RECOMMENDED and the behavior is implementation-defined, however implementations SHOULD prefer the qualified interpretation (`path.id` as a path parameter), as the names can always be qualified to disambiguate them (e.g. using `query.path.id` for the query parameter).
Expand Down