Hacktoberfest 2026: le issue che i maintainer hanno segnato per ottobre, aperte e adatte ai principianti. Sfoglia le issue Hacktoberfest

OpenAPI Destination Schema Discrepancies

Aperta
  • Qualcosa non va?
#471 1 commento 0 reazioni 0 assegnatari Vedi su GitHub

I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno

Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.

Valutazione

Difficoltà
5/5
Tempo stimato
Più di una settimana
Idoneità per principianti
25/100
Tipo di issue
Bug
Chiarezza
Abbastanza chiara
Stato di attività
Ferma
Stack tecnologico
go, json, openapi, yaml
Ambito
api, backend-api-design

Direzione di ricerca

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.

Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.

Descrizione

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

Lingua principale
Go
Stelle
1.1k
Fork
70
Merge medio
1g 3h
PR unite (30g)
50

Preparare l'ambiente

Questo progetto non fornisce container di sviluppo, Dockerfile né guida per i contributori, quindi l'ambiente è a tuo carico: parti dal suo README e consulta la nostra guida al primo contributo per i passaggi generali.

Come iniziare

  1. Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
  2. Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
  3. Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
  4. Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.

Altre issue di hookdeck/outpost

Tutte le issue di hookdeck/outpost

Issue simili

Altre issue su Go

Ricevi le nuove issue nella tua casella

Un breve riepilogo di issue GitHub adatte ai principianti.