Created by: spacether
openapi-generator has trouble processing inline composed schemas When it detects a complicated inline schema, it extracts it into a new component with an inline model resolver Sometimes it does not extract the schema though and the complicated schema remains inline. A complicated schema could be a schema with validations or composition, anything other than a simple type or type + format combination. python-experimental was built to allow full-featured schemas at any depth (root, inline at depth 1, 2 3 etc). Schema constraints will work whether or not a schema is extracted into a component or remains inline.
This PR
- adds inline composition examples to python-experimental to verify that the python-experimental generator is gracefully handling these inline schema use cases
- Feature: adds response body decoding of
multipart/form-datanote: json boundary content-types are not yet supported; they can be added in the future
When these samples work, it will close out: https://github.com/OpenAPITools/openapi-generator/issues/8457 because we will now have a python language generator which supports this inline composition use case.
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: 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./mvnw clean package ./bin/generate-samples.sh ./bin/utils/export_docs_generators.sh./bin/generate-samples.sh bin/configs/java*. For Windows users, please run the script in Git BASH. -
File the PR against the correct branch: master(5.3.0),6.0.x -
If your PR is targeting a particular programming language, @mention the technical committee members, so they are more likely to review the pull request.