You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Howdy! I'm getting some errors when I try to load our contracts up with openapi-enforcer, and I'm a bit confused, because we can load them successfully into various other validators and tools. The error I'm getting (for hundreds of routes) looks something like this:
EnforcerException: One or more errors exist in the OpenApi definition
at: paths
at: /things > get > responses > 200 > content > application/json
at: schema > items
Properties not allowed: properties, required
Missing required property: type
It looks like it's expecting a different object at that point, or possibly just that is being overly strict on it's requirements? I'm not sure whether this is related, but it looks like type, at least, should not be required.
Is there wriggle room in the spec for our contracts to be valid for some validators and not others? Or does that look like a bug in our contracts?
Thanks for the help!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hey Franklin. Thanks for the question. Can you share with me either the entire Open API document or at least the portion that is failing. By looking at that I'll have a better idea of what is going on.
It may have to do with the type property not being present. Have you tried adding type: object for that items schema?
Howdy! I'm getting some errors when I try to load our contracts up with
openapi-enforcer
, and I'm a bit confused, because we can load them successfully into various other validators and tools. The error I'm getting (for hundreds of routes) looks something like this:It looks like it's expecting a different object at that point, or possibly just that is being overly strict on it's requirements? I'm not sure whether this is related, but it looks like type, at least, should not be required.
Is there wriggle room in the spec for our contracts to be valid for some validators and not others? Or does that look like a bug in our contracts?
Thanks for the help!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: