-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.3k
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
Display requestBody description #833 #838
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks great except a few minor changes requested
Great PR! The screenshot is really helpful! |
I am NOT able to make the changes required myself. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
accidentally approved
* master: (73 commits) chore: fixes typo in error message for detecting a circular dependency in theme.ts (Redocly#852) chore: minor refactor fix: tidy up non-redoc vendor extension presentation (Redocly#847) chore(cli): redoc-cli v0.8.3 fix(cli): add node-libs-browser to the deps chore(cli): redoc-cli v0.8.2 fix: fix redoc-cli broken dependencies chore: Release 2.0.0-rc.4 🔖 feat: display requestBody description Redocly#833 (Redocly#838) fix: move swagger2openapi to deps because of missing transitive deps chore(cli): redoc-cli v0.8.0 chore: update peerDeps before release chore: Release 2.0.0-rc.3 🔖 fix: add extra deref step for anyOf/oneOf variants chore: Remove duplicate re-export from index.ts (Redocly#842) fix: pin lunr version in ReDoc chore: fix cli declarations feat: support externalValue for examples chore: update deps docs: Fixed docker README, added missing redocly repo name (Redocly#841) ...
After migrating to ReDoc we noticed that some of descriptions from our OpenAPI 3.0 spec that were previously visible in swagger-ui has disappeared.
One of the examples is description in requestBody (this missing feature was already referenced in comment to issue #598 (comment) and in this issue).
We were able to mitigate this problem by moving relevant descriptions from requestBodies up to request method level, but for the sake of completeness i decided to propose this PR.
Please comment if you are interested in incorporating this feature and if you are ok with this particular implementation.