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

[OpenAPI 3.1] Avoid NPE when handling prefixItems #19735

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 1, 2024
Merged

Conversation

wing328
Copy link
Member

@wing328 wing328 commented Oct 1, 2024

  • Avoid NPE when handling prefixItems0
  • add tests

FYI @OpenAPITools/generator-core-team

PR checklist

  • Read the contribution guidelines.
  • Pull Request title clearly describes the work in the pull request and Pull Request description provides details about how to validate the work. Missing information here may result in delayed response from the community.
  • Run the following to build the project and update samples:
    ./mvnw clean package 
    ./bin/generate-samples.sh ./bin/configs/*.yaml
    ./bin/utils/export_docs_generators.sh
    
    (For Windows users, please run the script in Git BASH)
    Commit all changed files.
    This is important, as CI jobs will verify all generator outputs of your HEAD commit as it would merge with master.
    These must match the expectations made by your contribution.
    You may regenerate an individual generator by passing the relevant config(s) as an argument to the script, for example ./bin/generate-samples.sh bin/configs/java*.
    IMPORTANT: Do NOT purge/delete any folders/files (e.g. tests) when regenerating the samples as manually written tests may be removed.
  • File the PR against the correct branch: master (upcoming 7.x.0 minor release - breaking changes with fallbacks), 8.0.x (breaking changes without fallbacks)
  • If your PR is targeting a particular programming language, @mention the technical committee members, so they are more likely to review the pull request.

@wing328 wing328 changed the title [openapi 3.1] Avoid NPE when handling prefixItems [OpenAPI 3.1] Avoid NPE when handling prefixItems Oct 1, 2024
@wing328 wing328 added this to the 7.9.0 milestone Oct 1, 2024
@@ -622,6 +627,11 @@ public void testOpenAPINormalizerProcessingArraySchema31Spec() {
assertEquals(((Schema) schema6.getProperties().get("arrayOfStrings")).getItems().getTypes().contains("string"), true);
assertEquals(((Schema) schema6.getProperties().get("arrayOfStrings")).getItems().getType(), "string");
assertEquals(((Schema) schema6.getProperties().get("arrayOfStrings")).getType(), "array");

Schema schema8 = openAPI.getComponents().getSchemas().get("ArrayWithPrefixItems");
assertNotEquals(((Schema) schema8.getProperties().get("with_prefixitems")).getItems(), null);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OOI, why not:

Suggested change
assertNotEquals(((Schema) schema8.getProperties().get("with_prefixitems")).getItems(), null);
assertNotNull(((Schema) schema8.getProperties().get("with_prefixitems")).getItems());

?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

to me, it's much easier to read when comparing 2 values

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍 Interesting, for me it's the opposite, scanning the assertion function first. Also, some of the convenience functions have more precise error messages in case the assertion fails, which I always appreciate whilst sorting out any messes I may have made :)

@@ -24,14 +24,14 @@ pub enum NumericEnumTesting {

}

impl ToString for NumericEnumTesting {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

refs #19736

@wing328 wing328 merged commit d7ac1e4 into master Oct 1, 2024
119 checks passed
@wing328 wing328 deleted the prefixitem-array branch October 1, 2024 09:36
@wing328 wing328 mentioned this pull request Oct 1, 2024
5 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants