Multi-valued parameters in path or query are not checked against collectionFormat

[fredbi]

According to spec, a multi-valued parameter in path or query (simple parameter) MUST be accompanied by the appropriate collectionFormation definition.

This check is currently not carried on by validate [results in wrong go-swagger code generation]

[gregmarr]

Are you saying that validate isn't checking that it's there, or isn't checking that the type matches what comes in?

collectionFormat is not marked as "Required" and it has "Default value is csv."

[fredbi]

Hello greg.
I am saying that a query param may be of type array and pass the validation without collectionFormat.
I am saying too that this setup produces invalid generated code in go-swagger.

The specification is ambiguous because it says two things:

• for query or path parameters of type array, there MUST be a collectionFormat
• and when looking at collectionFormat, they say the default is csv

Whatever, the spec package does not fill in the blanks with a "csv" value in this situation.

I also stumbled on another inconsistency: you may define simple params as arrays, and even arrays of arrays of arrays... It's legal for simple schema objects.
Problem here is that there is not corresponding collectionFormat for such nested structures.
This situation should also issue at least a warning.

[gregmarr]

"for query or path parameters of type array, there MUST be a collectionFormat"

Where are you seeing this? I can't find it.

[fredbi]

You are right, I did NOT get it from the official spec on 2.0.
Got it from here, since I thought it would bring some clarification... Actually it didn't.
https://swagger.io/docs/specification/2-0/describing-parameters/#query-parameters

[fredbi]

So if it is advisory only, I might add a warning some day in validate.
But right now I am in the template generating code for this part.
I'll take csv as default value if not defined and needed.

[fredbi]

Sorry for misleading previous post: I believe you're right - it is NOT stated as mandatory in official 2.0 spec

[gregmarr]

I can see how "must be defined with type: array and the appropriate collectionFormat." can be confusing. It sounds like it is required. You need to realize that collectionFormat has a default, and thus not providing collectionFormat is appropriate for csv type.

[fredbi]

How about examples and default values for such a param?
They should follow the collectionFormat syntax or be like regular arrays?
The former case is not supported by validate, the latter is.

[casualjim]

it's already unpacked at runtime validation time

[fredbi]

I understand that for runtime validation.
I was referring to spec validation of default and examples values.

Should the example value be expected in the collectionFormat form?

[casualjim]

It should still follow the same rules. So when collectionFormat is not present it should use the default strategy which is csv