Created by: DouglasDwyer
This PR adds a small fix for naming collisions in Go between generated struct fields and getter/setter method names. When using the Go generator, specifications that include model properties like Area and HasArea will cause code to be generated with compilation errors. This occurs because the HasArea field on the generated model has the same name as the HasArea() function for checking whether the model contains an Area property. This change adds a conflict resolution method which automatically renames model fields by appending underscore characters (_) to them until no more naming conflicts occur (without changing the underlying JSON names).
Here is a simple example of a specification which causes issues:
openapi: 3.0.1
info:
title: Test REST API
description: ''
termsOfService: ''
version: 0.0.0
paths: {}
components:
schemas:
Broken:
type: object
properties:
hasMass:
type: boolean
mass:
type: array
items:
type: number
format: double
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(6.0.1) (patch release),6.1.x(breaking changes with fallbacks),7.0.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. @antihax @grokify @kemokemo @jirikuncar @ph4r5h4d