feat: handle style and explode properties for parameters
#1296
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
richardlarocque
added a commit
to getoutreach/openapi-python-client
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 17, 2025
Updates the data models to capture `style` and `explode` parameters.
There was a PR outstanding that went in this direction [1]. We might
want to rebase on top of that one day, when it's merged. For now we
settle for some more targeted changes.
Updates "ModelProperty" and related templates with a `to_deep_dict()`
serialization option. This option differs from the regular `to_dict()`
in that nested dicts are flattened. It also adds a `[]` suffix for keys
that point at arrays. Finally, it takes a "prefix" argument that is the
base name of this object.
The end result of all this is that we can have a deepObject query param
named `filter` that results in some `FooFilter` model param. We can
initialize it as
```python
FooFilter.from_dict({'owner': { 'id': [12, 34] }})
```
then invoke its `to_deep_dict()` method to get
```python
{ 'filter[owner][id][]': [12, 34] }
```
which, when passed in to `httpx`, will result in a query param like
```
?filter[owner][id][]=12&filter[owner][id][]=34
```
which is exactly the format that APIv2 expects. This is not a
coincidence. We're doing this specifically to support APIv2.
Unfortunately, I don't see a straightforward way to polish and upstream
this change. The serialization conventions above are "Rails-style" [2],
one of many possible interpretations of how an OpenAPI deepObject should
act. The spec doesn't actually specify very much here.
So, while this is technically not *against* the spec, this is probably
not the interpretation that a Python generator would go with by default.
(Maybe one day it could be configurable? Or just wait and see if
OpenAPI delivers on its promise to fix all this?)
I feel like "fork" is the best option for us for now.
Since I don't expect this to be upstreamed, I haven't put much effort
into updating test suites. I expect that would only make later rebases
more difficult, without actually testing what we want most, which is
"do the generated libraries work with our API?"
[1] openapi-generators#1296
[2] OAI/OpenAPI-Specification#1706 (comment)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Adds support for OpenAPI array parameters, especially regarding the
explodeandstyleattributes, and enhances validation and code generation for parameters in the generated client.The most significant changes include updating the OpenAPI schema models for parameters, propagating the
explodeattribute through the parsing logic, and updating generated code and tests to handle non-exploded array parameters.References: