Add parameter.exampleValues property about widdershins HOT 6 CLOSED

@bc-AlyssNoland yes, the collapsible schema in Swagger-UI is nice, it's a pity as we're going through a static format such as markdown, we don't have the option to inject scripts like that. Widdershins lists the Body parameter with it's type name (from the #/definitions/name if present) and then shows an example of that schema (using openapi-sampler) in the right hand pane.

I wonder whether it might be worth having a switch to control whether the schema itself or the example is output? I think showing both (though useful) might take up too much room on the right hand side.

FYI I've just pushed some updates, check out the README for new data properties, including queryString, allHeaders, queryParameters, headerParameters, and exampleValues. They should make writing code templates easier (if not any more readable).

You can now also specify a callback function to get control before each template is output, in case you need to alter the data object in a any way.

from widdershins.

Better might be a parameter.exampleValues object with an initial property json, in case we want to extend this further with language specific formats.

Getting Python's indenting rules correct may be complex.

Also to consider is whether body ought to be in the parameters array at this point - it's probably passed differently in most languages / frameworks.

from widdershins.

@bc-AlyssNoland - do you have any input into this at the design stage?

from widdershins.

@MikeRalphson I agree with your point of using json to make it more language agnostic.

I've been comparing the output of widdershins to the swagger editor as that is also built with a flavor of JS. They will indicate the body parameter and then the schema within the body.

The ruby template I was working on looks fairly similar to the python one fwiw

require 'rest-client'
require 'json'


{{? data.method === 'put'}}
result = RestClient.{{=data.method}} '{{=data.url}}', {content_type: :json, accept: :json}, headers: {X-Auth-Client => 'ClientID', X-Auth-Token => 'AuthToken'}, params:
  {
		{{? data.parameters.length-1 != index}}
		{{~ data.parameters :p:index}}{{=p.name}}:'{{=p.type}}'{{? index == 0 }},{{?}}
		{{~}}{{?}}
  }
{{?? data.method === 'post'}}
result = RestClient.{{=data.method}} '{{=data.url}}', {content_type: :json, accept: :json}, headers: {X-Auth-Client => 'ClientID', X-Auth-Token => 'AuthToken'}, params:
  {
		{{? data.parameters.length-1 != index}}
		{{~ data.parameters :p:index}}{{=p.name}}:'{{=p.type}}'{{? index == 0 }},{{?}}
		{{~}}{{?}}
  }
{{?? data.method === 'get' || 'delete'}}
result = RestClient.{{=data.method}} '{{=data.url}}', {content_type: :json, accept: :json}, headers: {X-Auth-Client => 'ClientID', X-Auth-Token => 'AuthToken'}
{{?}}

p JSON.parse(result)

from widdershins.

I wonder whether it might be worth having a switch to control whether the schema itself or the example is output?

-- raw option added for this.

from widdershins.

Included in v1.1.0

from widdershins.