New Normalizer: REMOVE_FILTER

[jpfinne]

Implement #22227

PR checklist

• Read the contribution guidelines.
• Pull Request title clearly describes the work in the pull request and Pull Request description provides details about how to validate the work. Missing information here may result in delayed response from the community.
• Run the following to build the project and update samples:

  ./mvnw clean package || exit
  ./bin/generate-samples.sh ./bin/configs/*.yaml || exit
  ./bin/utils/export_docs_generators.sh || exit
  

  (For Windows users, please run the script in WSL)
  Commit all changed files.
  This is important, as CI jobs will verify all generator outputs of your HEAD commit as it would merge with master.
  These must match the expectations made by your contribution.
  You may regenerate an individual generator by passing the relevant config(s) as an argument to the script, for example ./bin/generate-samples.sh bin/configs/java*.
  IMPORTANT: Do NOT purge/delete any folders/files (e.g. tests) when regenerating the samples as manually written tests may be removed.
• File the PR against the correct branch: master (upcoming 7.x.0 minor release - breaking changes with fallbacks), 8.0.x (breaking changes without fallbacks)
• If your PR solves a reported issue, reference it using GitHub's linking syntax (e.g., having "fixes #123" present in the PR description)
• If your PR is targeting a particular programming language, @mention the technical committee members, so they are more likely to review the pull request.

[wing328]

thanks for the PR

the first thing that comes to my mind is whether we can leverage the existing FILTER by updating that to support removing schema instead?

that way we can avoid maintaining 2 filters that have very similar functionalities.

e.g. --openapi-normalizer FILTER="operationId:addPet|getPetById ; tag:store ; execute:DELETE_X_INTERNAL_SCHEMAS"

[jpfinne]

@wing328 Thanks for your comment. The main goal of this PR is to remove undesired part of the specification. I think we agree that it is a valuable feature.

FILTER is similar to redocly filter-in. REMOVE_FILTER is similar to redocly filter-out + remove-unused-components + remove-x-internal

Using FILTER there is no way to exclude components NOT having an attribute. Something similar to implicitHeaders=x-rate-limit applied to the specification using REMOVE_FILTER=headers:x-rate-limit. FILTER would need to list all the headers to keep.

An option is to rename REMOVE_FILTER to FILTER_OUT and to add REMOVE_UNUSED_COMPONENTS.
Negative FILTER could be specified as FILTER=tags:!store&!user (however not my preference)

The challenge is to find a syntax that is clear and simple enough to be put on the command line.

[wing328]

REMOVE_FILTER is similar to redocly filter-out + remove-unused-components + remove-x-internal

if that's the case, why not simply use redocly to produce the pre-process the spec first?

[jpfinne]

Redocly is a bit heavy to run under Maven.

I prefer adding a few config to thé openapi-génératif -maven -plugin.

I wanted to say that filter(~in) is different than this filterîng out