Repository navigation
definitions ids vs $ref values in swagger 2.0 examples #104
Description
Inconsistent:
https://github.com/wordnik/swagger-spec/blob/master/examples/v2.0/json/petstore.json#L51
vs
https://github.com/wordnik/swagger-spec/blob/master/examples/v2.0/json/petstore-simple.json#L171
Incorrect:
https://github.com/wordnik/swagger-spec/blob/master/examples/v2.0/json/petstore-simple.json#L171
vs
https://github.com/wordnik/swagger-spec/blob/master/examples/v2.0/json/petstore-simple.json#L192
Do these validate?
Also, with the change to "definitions" from models, tv4 validator no longer seems to validate these #/definitions/petInput style $ref values.
I can't tell if this is due to #103 or not.
Activity
webron commentedon Sep 13, 2014
Regarding the inconsistencies, you are correct that they are inconsistent but that doesn't make them wrong, they are just examples.
Regarding the incorrectness - you are absolutely right. If you take a look at all the references in that sample, you'll find they are wrong in some other locations as well.
These examples were merged from the repository we used for the development of the new spec. There are definitely errors and some disarray to the examples. I'll get around to organizing them once I finish some final touches with the spec documentation.
tlivings commentedon Sep 13, 2014
Yeah. rather that opening an issue I should have simply opened a PR. At the time I opened this for tracking with that intent but it would have been more straightforward to simply correct the examples.
webron commentedon Sep 13, 2014
No worries. I'm sure you can understand that with the new release the work load is quite intensive, but it's really great that you find and notify of those issues instead of just ignoring them.
Updated JSON examples