Issue with default value for additional property (oneOf) #270
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ulrikandersen
force-pushed
the
one-of-additional-properties
branch
from
6a2a57a to
1918f91
Compare
ulrikandersen
force-pushed
the
one-of-additional-properties
branch
from
15085eb to
39fcc45
Compare
|
Nice work! 👍 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
After #268 was merged it seems like additional properties in the generated model has an incorrect default value.
The test for discriminatedOneOf illustrates the issue: StateBMode has it's default value set to a non existent enum value - which looks like the value of the discriminator field.
I would love to assist with a fix, but I am simply not familiar enough with the codebase to be able to identify where to start.I have taken my best shot at fixing the issue. Let me know what you think.
I notice that the ordering of properties in the model is different from the order in the spec, but perhaps that's intentional?