Nswag: Optional parameter not being respected from specification

[DanubeRS]

Howdy!

I have a config generated by Swashbuckle, and read by NSwag Studio to create a client.

Generated Json;

"parameters": [
          {
            "name": "begin",
            "in": "query",
            "required": false,
            "type": "string",
            "format": "date-time"
          },
          {
            "name": "end",
            "in": "query",
            "required": false,
            "type": "string",
            "format": "date-time"
          }
        ]

However, the right pane with Swagger spec shows parameters with 'required' omitted;

"parameters": [
          {
            "type": "string",
            "name": "begin",
            "in": "query",
            "format": "date-time"
          },
          {
            "type": "string",
            "name": "end",
            "in": "query",
            "format": "date-time"
          }
        ]

Both toolsets are configured for the 2.0 spec

[RicoSuter]

"required" is removed because it is not needed (default value is "false"). See http://swagger.io/specification/#parameterObject

required: Otherwise, the property MAY be included and its default value is false.

[DanubeRS]

Ah, cool beans. So what would be the step to get Studio to reflect this as an optional parameter in a Typescript client generator? I have enabled the "Mark optional properties with ?" option and at the moment have to explicitly provide undefined for each property I don't wish to supply.

[RicoSuter]

The option "Mark optional properties with ?" is only for DTO classes/interfaces... I think for TypeScript there isn't currently the option to generate default parameters.

[RicoSuter]

Maybe we should add the option "GenerateOptionalParameters" (like in CSharp) which reorders parameters and adds "?" to the optional ones...

[DanubeRS]

As the language stands, I would say there were two approaches; using ? syntax on an optional parameter, or defining default parameters. The inherently optional nature of query parameters, the ? syntax would be my vote.

[RicoSuter]

I think we should go with ? because it does not need additional procedural code. Just FYI: As per the spec, query parameters can be required.

[lmdg]

Hi @RSuter, I just ran into this issue with an optional boolean. I just wanted to bump this and see if there were any updates since it's been over a year. Thanks.

[RicoSuter]

Have you tried the GenerateOptionalParameters?

[lmdg]

@RSuter oh, thank you good sir, that's exactly what I was missing. I really appreciate the quick reply, thanks again.

[RicoSuter]

Can we close this issue?

[lmdg]

I would say so, this functionality is covered.

On Aug 16, 2018, at 3:05 AM, Rico Suter [e-mail] wrote:

Can we close this issue?

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.