SwaggerSchemaFilterAttribute

[xMarkos]

Changes in this pull request

• allowing to use multiple attributes
• when applying SwaggerSchemaFilterAttribute, also applying them from base class

Inheriting attributes
Motivation:
When having class B derived from class A, while class A applies filter and modifies its fields in a way, if we also want to modify (the new) fields in class B, we needed to do something like this (pseudo code):

class BFilter: ISchemaFilter {
  void Apply(schema) {
    ISchemaFilter baseFilter = new AFilter();
    baseFilter.Apply(schema);
    //now apply logic for BFilter
  }
}

Which is:

• tedious
• error prone
• needs to know what class is the filter of my base class

With the fix it is possible to have code:

[SwaggerSchemaFilter(typeof(AFilter))]
class A {}

[SwaggerSchemaFilter(typeof(BFilter))]
class B : A {}

• this will first apply AFilter, then BFilter
• this will work seamlessly without any additional code in filters

Multiple filters
Motivation:

[SwaggerSchemaFilter(typeof(A))]
[SwaggerSchemaFilter(typeof(CommonFilter))]
class A : ISchemaFilter {}

• with multiple attributes it is possible to have
  • filters specific to the class
  • generic filters applied to set of classes
• before the patch, we needed to create wrapping filter that applies both filters manually, which is
  • tedious
  • needs to create wrapping class filters for each scenario
  • hard to maintain

Signed-off-by: Marek Hübsch [email protected]

[ugumba]

I've been hit by this - any progress on getting this merged?

[domaindrivendev]

Shouldn't simply changing the "inherit" flag to true in the call to GetCustomAttributes satisfy this requirement. I just tried it out and it appears to work. No need for all the code below.

[xMarkos]

The point of the additional code was to apply filters in the correct order. Just using true gets attributes in order derived class -> base class.

[domaindrivendev]

Does ordering really matter? If there's a specific use-case I might be willing to make the trade-off (i.e. introducing more complex code), otherwise I'd just opt for the simple solution