You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This clarifies how to handle resolving implicit (non-URI-based)
connections in multi-document OpenAPI Descriptions.
While the behavior is implementation-defined overall, this
RECOMMENDS a single approach based on how things behaved going
back to the 2.0 referencing model. This allows Security Schemes
and Tags to (like the top-level Server Objects) define
a deployment-specific interface for referenced documents to access.
This entry document interface approach makes less sense for the
Discriminator Object, but it can use the URI syntax of `mapping`
to keep things within the local document.
This also aligns the search for matching `operationId`s with
3.1's full-document parsing requirements.
Note that the term "complete OpenAPI document" has been defined
in another change pending approval on the 3.0.4 branch.
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: versions/3.1.1.md
+35-1
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -185,12 +185,46 @@ It is the responsibility of an embedding format to define how to parse embedded
185
185
186
186
When parsing an OAD, JSON or YAML objects are parsed into specific Objects (such as [Operation Objects](#operationObject), [Response Objects](#responseObject), [Reference Objects](#referenceObject), etc.) based on the parsing context. Depending on how references are arranged, a given JSON or YAML object can be parsed in multiple different contexts:
187
187
188
-
* As a full OpenAPI Description document (an [OpenAPI Object](#oasObject) taking up an entire document)
188
+
* As a complete OpenAPI Description document
189
189
* As the Object type implied by its parent Object within the document
190
190
* As a reference target, with the Object type matching the reference source's context
191
191
192
192
If the same JSON/YAML object is parsed multiple times and the respective contexts require it to be parsed as _different_ Object types, the resulting behavior is _implementation defined_, and MAY be treated as an error if detected. An example would be referencing an empty Schema Object under `#/components/schemas` where a Path Item Object is expected, as an empty object is valid for both types. For maximum interoperability, it is RECOMMENDED that OpenAPI Description authors avoid such scenarios.
Several features of this specification require resolving a non-URI-based connection to some other part of the OpenAPI Description (OAD).
197
+
198
+
These connections are easily resolved in single-document OADs, but the resolution process in multi-document OADs has never been spelled out, and is therefore _implementation-defined_, within the constraints described in this section.
199
+
In some cases, an unambiguous URI-based alternative is available, and OAD authors are RECOMMENDED to always use the alternative:
200
+
201
+
Source | Target | Alternative
202
+
------ | ------ | -----------
203
+
[Security Requirement Object](#securityRequirementObject)`{name}` | [Security Scheme Object](#securitySchemeObject) name under the [Components Object](#componentsObject) | _n/a_
204
+
[Discriminator Object](#discriminatorObject)`mapping`_(implicit, or explicit name syntax)_ | [Schema Object](#schemaObject) name under the Components Object | `mapping`_(explicit URI syntax)_
205
+
[Operation Object](#operationObject)`tags` | [Tag Object](#tagObject)`name` (in the Components Object) | _n/a_
A fifth implicit connection, which involves appending the templated URL paths of the [Paths Object](#pathsObject) to the appropriate [Server Object](#serverObject)'s `url` field, is unambiguous because only the entry document's Paths Object contributes URLs to the described API.
209
+
210
+
It is RECOMMENDED to consider all Operation Objects from all parsed documents when resolving any Link Object `operationId`.
211
+
This requires ensuring that all referenced documents have been parsed prior to determining an `operationId` to be unresolvable.
212
+
213
+
The implicit connections in the Security Requirement Object and Discriminator Object rely on the _component name_, which is the property name holding the component in the appropriate typed sub-object of the Components Object.
214
+
For example, the component name of the Schema Object at `#/components/schemas/Foo` is `Foo`.
215
+
The implicit connection of tags in the Operation Object use the `name` field of Tag Objects, which (like the Components Object) are found under the root OpenAPI Object.
216
+
This means that resolving component names and tag names both depend on starting from the correct OpenAPI Object.
217
+
218
+
For resolving component and tag name connections from a referenced (non-entry) document, it is RECOMMENDED that tools resolve from the entry document, rather than the current document.
219
+
This allows Security Scheme Objects and Tag Objects to be defined with the API's deployment information (the top-level Server Objects), and treated as an interface for referenced documents to access.
220
+
221
+
The interface approach can also work for Discriminator Objects and Schema Objects, but it is also possible to keep the Discriminator Object's behavior within a single document using the relative URI-reference syntax of `mapping`.
222
+
223
+
There are not currently URI-based alternatives for the Security Requirement Object or for the Operation Object's `tags` field.
224
+
These limitations are expected to be addressed in a future release.
225
+
226
+
Note that no aspect of implicit connection resolution changes how [URIs are resolved](#relativeReferencesURI), or restricts their possible targets.
227
+
194
228
### <aname="dataTypes"></a>Data Types
195
229
196
230
Data types in the OAS are based on the types supported by the [JSON Schema Specification Draft 2020-12](https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bhutton-json-schema-00#section-4.2.1).
0 commit comments