Replies: 1 comment
-
@amolari apologies for the delayed reply. As written, your usage is compliant, and this has been clarified for 3.2 in PR #3256 (and some subsequent PRs tweaking it, I think). We might backport this clarification to 3.1.2, once we're certain that we did not contradict anything that 3.1 says or add any new requirement. So keep an eye out for that as a definitive answer for 3.1 (and 3.0... we probably won't do a 3.0.5 but path templating didn't change between 3.0 and 3.1). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
I'm battling with a (api) security vendor about the conformity to OAS 3.0.x of such specfile snippet:
That security vendor tells me that those path parameters definitions (
"/MaterialStocks(Material='{Material}',Warehouse='{Warehouse}')"
) are not conform and therefor their product cannot interpret it correctly.It's true that in examples found on swagger.io and other places around, the positional parameter is the path-segment such as in "
/MaterialStocks/{Material}/{Warehouse}
"On the other hand, it seems that my spec file snippet is conform to RFC6570. I've found also a couple of examples of such specfile such as here
So my question would be basically: is that snippet conform to OAS 3.0.x or not?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions