ts-proto VS OpenAPI-Specification

I created it so that I could use `protoc` and `ts-proto` to convert the otel proto files into typescript files.

Re libraries incompatible with certain typescript versions - e.g. protobufjs fix - it’s been my experience that you want to try and only use compilers specific to each library and compile libraries separately. It’s unfortunate but the JS community often tries to run all JS for a project through the same single compiler tool chain, using one global version of the compiler instead of relying on and effectively linking the JS output for each library. Unless you routinely rewrite third-party libraries to match your toolchain’s expectations, you’re going to have a hard time doing that.

For a library that generates code, that’s a special case, as the code it generates must target a particular language version. You have three choices: 1. Upstream a fix as you propose; 2. Side-by-side install both TS 4.6 and TS 4.7 using workspaces or sub-projects and have some of your code compile with 4.6 and then link the results or 3. Find a replacement that is updated to 4.7. For example, https://github.com/stephenh/ts-proto has 4.7 support listed in its readme.

With ts-proto, I can pass a --ts_proto_opt=outputServices=generic-definitions as a flag to protoc to generate "generic service definitions". These definitions contain descriptors for each method, which allows to generate server and client stubs at runtime, and also generate strong types for them at compile time.

Curious to see their typescript implementation and how it compares with https://github.com/stephenh/ts-proto which works great for grpc-web.

I'm planning on modding https://github.com/stephenh/ts-proto to use https://github.com/ianstormtaylor/superstruct on the client.

We also use protobufs and typescript, so we use ts-proto for codegen + binding to grpc services.

Fwiw I maintain ts-proto (https://github.com/stephenh/ts-proto/) and it'd be cool to have the functionality you're building supported in ts-proto at somepoint, if you're curious/want to poke around/etc. :-) Right now there is grpc support via the improbable-eng grpcwebproxy, but supporting GCP's transcoding as well would be great.

And I'll be using the OpenAPI Pet Store spec file as an example.

I saw your sibling comment about "keeping it simple," however that is a bit counter to "generates OpenAPI specifications" since those for sure are not limited to just application/json request/response bodies

I wanted to draw your attention to "normal" POST application/x-www-form-urlencoded <https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/3.1.0/vers...> and its multipart/form-data friend <https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/3.1.0/vers...>

The latter is likely problematic, but the former is in wide use still, including, strangely enough, the AWS API, although some of their newer services do have an application/json protocol

I know that's a lot of words, but the tl;dr would be that if you want your extension to be application/json only, then changing the description to say "OpenAPI specifications for application/json handshakes" would help the consumer be on the same page with your goals

Since FastAPI is based on OpenAPI, at this point you can also use the automatically generated docs. There are multiple options, and two are included by default. Try them out by accessing the following URLs:

This approach requires a constant context switch and is clearly not productive. Here, the OpenAPI Specification can help; you might already have it, but is it scalable? In this article, we’ll learn how to create an OpenAPI Specification document that is readable, scalable, and follows the principle of extension without modifying the existing document.

Phil Sturgeon, who along with Ben Hutton and Henry Andrews from the JSON Schema community, helped drive the push to full JSON Schema Draft 2020-12 compliance, has written a blog post for the official OpenAPIs.org website on how to transition your OAS documents from v3.0.x to v3.1.0.

In this article, we will be learning how to document API written in Node.js using a tool called Swagger. Swagger allows you to describe the structure of your APIs so that machines can read them. The ability of APIs to describe their own structure is the root of all awesomeness in Swagger. Why is it so great? Well, by reading our API’s structure, swagger can automatically build beautiful and interactive API documentation. It can also automatically generate client libraries for your API in many languages and explore other possibilities like automated testing. Swagger does this by asking our API to return a YAML or JSON that contains a detailed description of your entire API. This file is essentially a resource listing of our API which adheres to OpenAPI Specifications.

You may encounter APIs described as RESTful that do not meet these criteria. This is often the result of bottom-up coding, where top-down design should have been used. Another thing to watch out for is the absence of a schema. There are alternatives, but OpenAPI is a common choice with good tools support. If you don't have a schema, you can create one by building a Postman collection.

The principle behind the OpenAPI Specification (OAS – the industry’s most popular API specification format) is similar. It’s supposed to act as a blueprint for describing RESTful APIs.

OpenAPI 3.1 supports webhooks. It's not widely supported yet by implementations, but it's definitely there. https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/main/examples/v3.1/webhook-example.yaml

The Fastly API is huge. We have lots of customers who want to interact with it using their chosen programming language but our small set of manually maintained clients was not sufficient to handle the job of our ever-evolving API. We needed a way to scale up our API client support, and OpenAPI was the answer.