Path templating, multiple segments, and RFC 6570?

[christav]

I'm trying to write swagger docs for APIs like dropbox where the number of path segments isn't known ahead of time. For example, the path template will look something like:

/api/metadata/{filePath}

And the following urls should all match this path:

/api/metadata/file1.txt
/api/metadata/dir1/file2.txt
/api/metadata/dir1/dir2/file3.txt

If we were using RFC 6570, I'd represent this as:

/api/metadata/{/filePath*}

but the swagger v2 spec doesn't say if this syntax is acceptable or not.

If it is acceptable/correct, could you please let me know in this item? If it's not, what is the expected way to model APIs like this with runtime variable URI paths?

[webron]

Currently, Swagger 2.0 doesn't support it. It's been discussed in the workgroup but we have decided to exclude it. I imagine it has a very good chance of being included in the next version of the spec though.

[christav]

Thanks, please then consider this a vote for some solution to this problem in the next rev of the spec.

[igr]

👍

[dilipkrish]

👍🏻

[GitVhaos]

Does this bug imply that it is not possible to have multiple REST-API "Search" operations for same resource?
"/rest/resource?param1"
"/rest/resource?param2&param3"
...
This would be a big problem for us to use swagger!

[webron]

It's not a bug, it's a feature request (can't believe I just said that).

If your query parameters are mutually exclusive, you can't define that, but that's not related to this feature but another one here. If you're just looking to describe multiple parameters, there's no problem with that.

[GitVhaos]

Okay let`s name it feature ^^
I´m exactly referencing to the springfox-swagger "feature" dilipkrish linked above.
Can u please tell me the issue number of the "other feature" u wrote about, so I can track it?

[webron]

It actually relates to #164, not this one. We can't treat RFC 6570 as a single feature. Not saying it won't all be implemented, but we need to have separate issues for separate sections of it so we know we cover it properly.

[chrisdostert]

+1 and curious about how to track/participate in the workgroup on this issue?