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

AsyncAPI 3.0.0 compatibility #182

Closed
lino opened this issue Apr 18, 2024 · 4 comments
Closed

AsyncAPI 3.0.0 compatibility #182

lino opened this issue Apr 18, 2024 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@lino
Copy link

lino commented Apr 18, 2024

Hey,

it's been almost half a year since 3.0.0 was released. Since my workplace is discussing the timeline regarding switching to 3.0.0, I'd like to humbly ask, if there are any plans to generate 3.0.0 compliant schemas.

Also I'd gladly offer assistance in implementing this, as I am way too lazy to write our schemas by hand (or migrate them to 3.0.0 compatibility)

Thanks a lot for the time you have been putting into this,
Lino

@ChMThiel
Copy link
Contributor

ChMThiel commented May 3, 2024

Sorry for the late reply...
As you might be aware, the project consists of 2 parts:

  1. scan given aysnapi-file and generate configuration from it (@fjtirado ), and
  2. scan code for annotations and generate an asyncapi-file (my part)

currently the asyncApi-version is set globaly by the dependency to com.asyncapi.asyncapi-core.
After an local update to 1.0.0-RC several things fail...I'm not sure, what is to be done in order to use v3.0.0 in 1.), but i had a first look on my part of the code.
It seems that there are serveral changes in asyncapi-core v2->v3, for example that 'ChannelItem' no longer exists.
I will have a look, what i can do, ASAP...
see https://www.asyncapi.com/docs/migration/migrating-to-v3

@fjtirado
Copy link
Contributor

fjtirado commented May 3, 2024

@fjtirado I will also take a look in the other part of the code. Probably the best approach is that @ChMThiel open a PR in his part (which will fail because of my part) and then I open a PR over that PR for my part (that will be finally green)

@ChMThiel
Copy link
Contributor

ChMThiel commented May 7, 2024

@fjtirado I will also take a look in the other part of the code. Probably the best approach is that @ChMThiel open a PR in his part (which will fail because of my part) and then I open a PR over that PR for my part (that will be finally green)

@fjtirado see #184

@fjtirado fjtirado mentioned this issue May 7, 2024
ChMThiel added a commit that referenced this issue May 8, 2024
@lino
Copy link
Author

lino commented May 16, 2024

Wow, you folks are awesome. Thank you very much. <3

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants