897 fixing problem while generating swagger documentation for enum messages

[fahernandez]

No description provided.

[fahernandez]

This pull request will fix issue #897

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #898 into master will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master    #898      +/-   ##
=========================================
+ Coverage   53.69%   53.7%   +0.01%     
=========================================
  Files          39      39              
  Lines        3926    3927       +1     
=========================================
+ Hits         2108    2109       +1     
  Misses       1621    1621              
  Partials      197     197

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
protoc-gen-swagger/genswagger/template.go	56.33% <100%> (+0.04%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update be12715...e89df15. Read the comment docs.

[johanbrandhorst]

Firstly, I don't understand what this fixes. Why does the applied change fix a comment that ends in a dot?

Could we add some tests for this case as well?

Thanks

[fahernandez]

It's a very strange behavior but if you look line protoc-gen-swagger/genswagger/template.go:1246 you will see a condition to avoid executing a particular flow if the comment has a dot at the end. So when the support for enum and objects annotation was added I forget to take into consideration this case causing in this particular case to fallback to condition protoc-gen-swagger/genswagger/template.go:1275. So basically I'm only changing condition protoc-gen-swagger/genswagger/template.go:1268 to the default fallback that existe before the changes but keeping the code needed to support the comments override behavior.

I don't have a clear idea how to make a test to test particular condition thats why I added an example case on examples/proto/examplepb/a_bit_of_everything.proto:166 to be sure that the problem was fixed but keeping past changes.

Firstly, I don't understand what this fixes. Why does the applied change fix a comment that ends in a dot?

Could we add some tests for this case as well?

Thanks

[johanbrandhorst]

Thanks for your contribution :)