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] Identify more orphaned components besides schemas #1103

Open
Tracked by #2100
nulltoken opened this issue Apr 18, 2020 · 5 comments
Open
Tracked by #2100

[AsyncAPI] Identify more orphaned components besides schemas #1103

nulltoken opened this issue Apr 18, 2020 · 5 comments
Labels
AsyncAPI Issues related to the AsyncAPI ruleset enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed

Comments

@nulltoken
Copy link
Contributor

In #974, the asyncapi ruleset has been initiated with a rule which will identify unused/orphaned schemas, under components.

As identified in #1073 this rule could really benefit from being extended to be able to detect other kinds of orphan objects (messageTraits, ...).

/cc @derberg

@jonaslagoni
Copy link
Collaborator

I have/plan to create sub-issues for solving this issue, it is based on the available components in https://www.asyncapi.com/docs/specifications/v2.3.0#componentsObject.

List of sub-issues:

@jonaslagoni
Copy link
Collaborator

jonaslagoni commented Mar 17, 2022

Before adding the rest of the issues, a thought came to mind. Do we want all of these checks as part of one rule or split into multiple, as it seems https://github.com/stoplightio/spectral/pull/1440/files introduced 🤔

Or asked another way, have you folks seen a reason why someone might want to only check some of the components instead of all?

cc @P0lip

@jonaslagoni
Copy link
Collaborator

cc @magicmatatjahu @smoya

@magicmatatjahu
Copy link
Contributor

I wa surprised that a rule was made that only checks for one type of component (I have in mind that PR with servers). I would prefer to go the way it is done in OpenAPI (as you mentioned) - one rule for all types of components.

@jonaslagoni
Copy link
Collaborator

Alright, let's keep it consistent then.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
AsyncAPI Issues related to the AsyncAPI ruleset enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants