utoipa VS sig-moonwalk

In case you didn't know https://github.com/juhaku/utoipa is really nice to generate openapi spec and have a swagger!

play-swagger [2] for scala + play. They generate a significant portion of your spec for you, then a client can be generated from the spec.

[1] https://github.com/juhaku/utoipa

[2] https://github.com/iheartradio/play-swagger

utoipa

Latest release notes: https://github.com/juhaku/utoipa/releases/tag/utoipa-3.0.0

I've written a few backend APIs with rust and I have to disagree. Not only have the frameworks managed to get the ergonomics similar to your popular GC lang[0][1], the natural lack of shared mutable state of HTTP handlers means you very rarely have to encounter lifetimes and a lot of the language's advanced features. What's more, now when I go back to work with other languages, I can't help but notice the significant number of unit tests I'd not have had to write in Rust. It doesn't have a Rails and Django but it's an easy pick over anything at the language level.

A note on performance, Rust's the only langauge where I haven't had the need to update my unit test harnesses to `TRUNCATE` data base data instead of creating a separate db per test on PostgresSQL.

I'll also like to mention the gem that is SQLx[1]. As someone who's never been satisfied with ORMs, type checked SQL queries that auto-populate your custom types is revolutionary. With the error-prone langauge-SQL boundary covered, I was surprised just how good it can get making use of the builtin PostgreSQL features. Almost to the point that amount of effort the community's put to building great tools like Prisma.js and feel like a fool's errand (at least so for PosgreSQL).

[0]: https://github.com/alexpusch/rust-magic-function-params

[1]: https://github.com/juhaku/utoipa

[3]: lib.rs/crates/sqlx

Going to strongly disagree here. This isn't necessary in most cases. You likely do not need to test actix-web. actix-web already has more tests than you can possibly think of for exercising its correctness. So why do you need to black-box test it? Further, if your concern is an API client integrating with the API, use code generation not tests to ensure correctness! Generate your clients from a spec generated from your types! I recommend Swagger/OpenAPI or JSON Schema. Here's a nice library for doing this: https://github.com/juhaku/utoipa

utoipa: supports most popular frameworks

Something like that is planned in future releases. There is a closed discussion in Github https://github.com/juhaku/utoipa/issues/201 and traits for this already exists but the derive implementaiton is yet to be done.

Those tags next function parameters look cool. Do you maybe know a crate Utoipa and could share differences between the two crates for those who want to quickly compare them? I've been using utoipa but also I've been following the discussion on Axum's repo about OpenAPI integration in hope for something more comfortable to write. Taking a quick peek they seem very similar but I'm guessing the approach is slightly different?

One of the Moonwalk discussions is indeed about moving from objects to arrays for many structures: https://github.com/OAI/moonwalk/discussions/32

Also, I agree with the person who mentioned JSON Patch (RFC 6902), which I feel is an under-rated and underused technology. While less intuitive than JSON Merge Patch (RFC 7396), it is far more powerful. I have used both together, using JSON Merge Patch where possible to keep things more readable and intuitive, and using JSON Patch where JSON Merge Patch can't do what is needed. Although if most of your changes need JSON Patch, I find it's better to just stick with that.

Why not get involved in the discussions around a tentative OpenAPI 4.0, codename 'Moonwalk'?