Decode model schema name on model component

[souenzzo]

Description

Decodes the schema name on model

Motivation and Context

Fixes #5626 (for both OpenAPI v3 and Swagger V2)

How Has This Been Tested?

• Go to localhost:3200
• Paste this data-url in the url field

data:application/json;base64,eyJjb21wb25lbnRzIjp7InNjaGVtYXMiOnsiYVwvYitjIjp7InR5cGUiOiJudW1iZXIifX19LCJvcGVuYXBpIjoiMy4wLjMiLCJwYXRocyI6eyJcLyI6eyJnZXQiOnsicmVzcG9uc2VzIjp7ImRlZmF1bHQiOnsiY29udGVudCI6eyJhcHBsaWNhdGlvblwvanNvbiI6eyJzY2hlbWEiOnsiJHJlZiI6IiNcL2NvbXBvbmVudHNcL3NjaGVtYXNcL2F+MWIlMkJjIn19fX19fX19fQ==

• Expand / route
• Switch the default response from example value to model
• You should see a/b+c, without any ~1 or %B2

An data-uri to test Swagger v2 spec

data:application/yaml;base64,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

Screenshots (if appropriate):

Before screenshot in #5626

My PR contains...

• No code changes (src/ is unmodified: changes to documentation, CI, metadata, etc.)
• Dependency changes (any modification to dependencies in package.json)
• Bug fixes (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Improvements (misc. changes to existing features)
• Features (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

My changes...

• are breaking changes to a public API (config options, System API, major UI change, etc).
• are breaking changes to a private API (Redux, component props, utility functions, etc.).
• are breaking changes to a developer API (npm script behavior changes, new dev system dependencies, etc).
• are not breaking changes.

Documentation

• My changes do not require a change to the project documentation.
• My changes require a change to the project documentation.
• If yes to above: I have updated the documentation accordingly.

Automated tests

• My changes can not or do not need to be tested.
• My changes can and should be tested by unit and/or integration tests.
• If yes to above: I have added tests to cover my changes.
• If yes to above: I have taken care to cover edge cases in my tests.
• All new and existing tests passed.

[souenzzo]

@ponelat

[ponelat]

Thanks for the fix @souenzzo.
When you say the test won't run... does it run? I don't understand.
Happy to get this merged, as the model name is mostly visual. Not sure about all the edge-cases of JSON Pointer and URL encoding.

@souenzzo could you update the branch.
@char0n any reason the PR builders aren't running, is it to do with the Draft Status of this PR?

[souenzzo]

@ponelat thank you for your attention

• updated the branch
• fixed the test
• extended the solution to Swagger v2
• updated the PR description ;)

I think that this branch now is good to go.

[char0n]

@char0n any reason the PR builders aren't running, is it to do with the Draft Status of this PR?

@ponelat, I need to approve the workflow before it can run. More info in https://docs.github.com/en/actions/managing-workflow-runs/approving-workflow-runs-from-public-forks

---

@souenzzo thanks for contributing. Doing the code review now.

[char0n]

Please have a look at my code review comments.

[souenzzo]

@char0n done

[char0n]

LGTM

[char0n]

Did some final style changes before the merge. We're good to go here!

[souenzzo]

@char0n tnks :)

Btw, a feedback from the contribution process:

would be nice if the linter warn us about const vs let usage.

[char0n]

Hi @souenzzo,

would be nice if the linter warn us about const vs let usage.

Yes, automated linting is the plan. Utilizing prettier + eslint + aribnb codestyle will be utilized (as it's already has been done for SwaggerEditor and SwaggerClient). That would require to convert entire codebase. Meanwhile we have to check that manually unfortunately which decrease dev experience. Thanks for the feedback!