Skip to content

Invalid response status code default (not a number), response will be ommitted from generated client #632

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
gzll opened this issue Jun 13, 2022 · 3 comments
Labels
🐞bug Something isn't working

Comments

@gzll
Copy link

gzll commented Jun 13, 2022

Describe the bug
Invalid response status code default (not a number), response will be ommitted from generated client

To Reproduce
openapi-python-client generate --url https://petstore3.swagger.io/api/v3/openapi.json

Desktop (please complete the following information):

  • OS: Windows 10
  • Python Version: 3.9.1
  • openapi-python-client version 0.11.3

Additional context

Generating swagger-petstore-open-api-3-0-client
Warning(s) encountered while generating. Client was generated, but some pieces may be missing

WARNING parsing POST /user within user.

Invalid response status code default (not a number), response will be ommitted from generated client


WARNING parsing POST /user/createWithList within user.

Invalid response status code default (not a number), response will be ommitted from generated client


WARNING parsing GET /user/logout within user.

Invalid response status code default (not a number), response will be ommitted from generated client


WARNING parsing PUT /user/{username} within user.

Invalid response status code default (not a number), response will be ommitted from generated client
@gzll gzll added the 🐞bug Something isn't working label Jun 13, 2022
@schroeer
Copy link

I think that this is a duplicate of #124

@leosouzadias
Copy link

I can see that #124 was closed as the PR #665 was merged, however it looks like that PR did not include the code to handle default which was the goal of #124.
Can we use this issue to continue with the investigation on how to handle the default response?

@dbanty
Copy link
Collaborator

dbanty commented Dec 4, 2023

#124 was not closed by that PR, it was converted to a discussion #832 since all feature requests are now in discussions. So this issue should also actually be closed in favor of that discussion—any interested can go upvote it and add any missing context

@dbanty dbanty closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Dec 4, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
🐞bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants