Fix #1191 Validation error on optional exploded query #1192
Conversation
Signed-off-by: likwei <[email protected]>
…st schema. Add new test case to query optional parameter.
Signed-off-by: likwei <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: francesco <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: likwei <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: likwei <[email protected]>
slinkydeveloper
added
the
component/api-contract/bug
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for your contribution!
I think that this bug is a bit tricky to solve as the actual validation package works. Now the exploded object fields are handled as separated query parameters because I left to ValidationHandler (look in BaseValidationHandler) the task of extracting the parameter from parameters list. This will change in 4.0
To care about all required keywords (both query parameter level and inner object parameter level) we must create a kind of "dependency" that correlates the three validation rules, and it seems to me very very awkward. I prefer to stick with that bug, as in 4.0 this will be easily solved
|
|
||
| String requestURI = "/query/form/optional/explode/object?G=200&B=150&alpha=50"; | ||
|
|
||
| testEmptyRequestWithJSONObjectResponse(HttpMethod.GET, requestURI, 200, "OK", new JsonObject("{\"G\":\"200\",\"B\":\"150\",\"alpha\":50}")); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test is wrong! The required parameters for ColorObject are R, G, and B, so this should return a 400 Bad Request
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ya.. I basically turn a 'strict' bug into a 'lenient' bug. Because at least it allows me to query without any parameters.
I'll see what I can do to properly fix it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What if, as workaround, you just use separated query parameters as optional?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unfortunately we are required to use the exact spec file defined by 3GPP.
…e ensure all required params of an optional exploded object must be absence Signed-off-by: lwlee2608 <[email protected]>
|
@slinkydeveloper I've address the issue. Exploded parameter fields will have some sort of "dependency" on other parameter fields that belong to the same parent Object. |
|
This is exactly what I would like to avoid. A lot of messy replicated code and it doesn't completely address the issue (It should work for header and cookie params too) |
No description provided.