Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

description/summary for Paths Object #3722

Open
handrews opened this issue Apr 19, 2024 Discussed in #3532 · 0 comments
Open

description/summary for Paths Object #3722

handrews opened this issue Apr 19, 2024 Discussed in #3532 · 0 comments
Labels
metadata tags, info, license, contact, markdown usage, etc.

Comments

@handrews
Copy link
Contributor

Discussed in #3532

Originally posted by kentbulza January 28, 2024
This seems like an obvious gap to me, but I want to see what were the philosophical reasons for it. Perhaps because the webhooks object is newer, it just wasn't as obvious at first that the info object can be awkward? The issue is there may be very different global(esque) descriptive text for all the paths vs. all the webhooks.


The concern here is about describing Paths and Webhooks separately. It's possible to put each in separate documents with separate Info Objects, but it is not possible to reference an entire Paths Object (or the entire contents of the webhooks field, which isn't a named Object in 3.1). I could see solving this by either adding these fields (they cannot be confused with path templates, although that doesn't help with the object under webhooks) or the much larger change of allowing referencing groups of Paths (which might be deemed too big to do prior to Moonwalk

@handrews handrews added the metadata tags, info, license, contact, markdown usage, etc. label Apr 19, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
metadata tags, info, license, contact, markdown usage, etc.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant