Hacktoberfest 2026: los issues que los mantenedores marcaron para octubre, abiertos y aptos para principiantes. Explorar issues de Hacktoberfest

OpenAPI Destination Schema Discrepancies

Abierto
  • ¿Algo no está bien?
#471 1 comentario 0 reacciones 0 asignados Ver en GitHub

Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día

Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.

Evaluación

Dificultad
5/5
Tiempo estimado
Más de una semana
Aptitud para principiantes
25/100
Tipo de issue
Error
Claridad
Bastante claro
Estado de actividad
Estancado
Stack tecnológico
go, json, openapi, yaml
Área
api, backend-api-design

Línea de trabajo

Start by comparing docs/apis/openapi.yaml with the affected internal/destregistry/metadata/providers/*/metadata.json files, then read the destination implementation to establish which definitions are authoritative. Check how OpenAPI is generated and whether validation tests exist. Done means the reported discrepancies are resolved consistently with the implementation and covered by validation where appropriate.

Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.

Descripción

bug

Summary

During validation of AWS S3 schemas, comprehensive discrepancies were found between OpenAPI specification (docs/apis/openapi.yaml) and metadata definitions (internal/destregistry/metadata/providers/*/metadata.json) across all destination types.

Priority: Medium

These discrepancies may affect API documentation accuracy and could lead to validation errors or confusion for API consumers.

Affected Destination Types

1. Webhook Destination

Issues Found:

  • OpenAPI includes credential fields (secret, previous_secret, previous_secret_invalid_at) not present in metadata.json
  • Different URL validation approaches (format vs regex pattern)
  • metadata.json has no credential fields ([]) while OpenAPI defines credential management

Impact: Medium - credential management may not be implemented as documented

2. AWS SQS Destination

Issues Found:

  • Missing endpoint field in metadata.json (present in OpenAPI)
  • Missing session field in metadata.json (present in OpenAPI)
  • Inconsistent field descriptions

Impact: Medium - optional fields may not be implemented

3. AWS Kinesis Destination

Issues Found:

  • Different validation approaches (format vs pattern)
  • Field descriptions differ slightly
  • Missing pattern validation in OpenAPI for stream_name

Impact: Low - mostly validation and documentation issues

4. RabbitMQ Destination

Issues Found:

  • exchange field marked required in OpenAPI but optional in metadata.json
  • Different TLS field types: OpenAPI uses string enum ["true", "false"], metadata.json uses checkbox
  • Different TLS defaults: OpenAPI "false", metadata.json "on"
  • Password sensitivity not marked in OpenAPI (security documentation issue)

Impact: Medium - requirement mismatch could break API validation

5. Hookdeck Destination

Issues Found:

  • Token sensitivity not marked in OpenAPI

Impact: Low - security documentation issue

6. Azure Service Bus Destination

Issues Found:

  • Missing pattern validation in OpenAPI (^[a-zA-Z0-9]([a-zA-Z0-9._-]*[a-zA-Z0-9])?$)
  • Connection string sensitivity not marked in OpenAPI
  • Inconsistent inclusion in destination enums/discriminators

Impact: Medium - incomplete integration and validation

Detailed Field Comparisons

AWS SQS
Field OpenAPI metadata.json Issue
queue_url required, format: url required, pattern validation Different validation methods
endpoint optional, format: url MISSING Field not implemented?
session optional (credentials) MISSING Temporary credentials not supported?
RabbitMQ
Field OpenAPI metadata.json Issue
exchange required optional Conflicting requirements
tls enum: ["true","false"], default: "false" checkbox, default: "on" Different types and defaults
Azure Service Bus
Field OpenAPI metadata.json Issue
name no pattern validation pattern: ^[a-zA-Z0-9]([a-zA-Z0-9._-]*[a-zA-Z0-9])?$ Missing validation

Root Cause Analysis

  1. Metadata as Source of Truth: metadata.json files appear to reflect actual implementation
  2. Manual OpenAPI Maintenance: OpenAPI schema seems manually maintained and outdated
  3. Missing Validation Transfer: Pattern validations from metadata not consistently transferred to OpenAPI
  4. Sensitivity Markers: OpenAPI doesn't mark credential fields as sensitive consistently

Recommended Actions

Immediate (High Priority)
  1. Investigate implementation to determine which schema is correct for each discrepancy
  2. Fix RabbitMQ exchange requirement - breaking change potential
  3. Add missing Azure Service Bus pattern validation
Medium Priority
  1. Align AWS SQS optional fields (endpoint, session)
  2. Standardize TLS field handling across RabbitMQ
  3. Add missing sensitivity markers for security documentation
Long Term
  1. Establish schema generation process from metadata.json to OpenAPI
  2. Create validation tests to prevent future drift
  3. Document authoritative schema source

Technical Details

Validation Pattern Examples
  • AWS Region: ^[a-z]{2}-[a-z]+-[0-9]+$
  • Azure Service Bus Name: ^[a-zA-Z0-9]([a-zA-Z0-9._-]*[a-zA-Z0-9])?$
  • RabbitMQ Server: ^(?:localhost|127\.0\.0\.1|\[::1\]|(?:[\w\-]+\.)+[a-z]{2,})(?::\d{1,5})?$
Security Considerations

All credential fields should be marked as sensitive:

  • AWS: key, secret, session
  • Azure: connection_string
  • RabbitMQ: password
  • Hookdeck: token

Dependencies

  • Access to destination implementation code
  • Understanding of current OpenAPI generation process
  • API validation testing capabilities

Created by: Automated analysis comparing OpenAPI schemas with metadata.json definitions
Date: 2025-09-02

Lenguaje dominante
Go
Estrellas
1.1k
Forks
70
Merge medio
1 d 18 h
PR fusionados (30 d)
56

Preparar el entorno

Este proyecto no incluye contenedor de desarrollo, Dockerfile ni guía de contribución, así que la configuración corre por tu cuenta: empieza por su README y consulta nuestra guía para la primera contribución para los pasos generales.

Primeros pasos

  1. Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
  2. Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
  3. Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
  4. Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.

Más de hookdeck/outpost

Todos los issues de hookdeck/outpost

Issues similares

Más issues de Go

Recibe los nuevos issues en tu correo

Un resumen breve de issues de GitHub para principiantes.