Skip to content

"offlineAttributes" are not defined in both swagger files #36

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

Open
tbolsh opened this issue Jan 14, 2021 · 8 comments
Open

"offlineAttributes" are not defined in both swagger files #36

tbolsh opened this issue Jan 14, 2021 · 8 comments

Comments

@tbolsh
Copy link

tbolsh commented Jan 14, 2021

I was trying to generate a golang client using the go-swagger utility and it barks on both swagger files:

swagger generate client -f ../eSign-OpenAPI-Specification/esignature.rest.swagger-v2.1.json -A go-demo-client
2021/01/14 10:35:17 validating spec /Users/gcsadmin/projects/docusign-api/eSign-OpenAPI-Specification/esignature.rest.swagger-v2.1.json
The swagger spec at "/Users/gcsadmin/projects/docusign-api/eSign-OpenAPI-Specification/esignature.rest.swagger-v2.1.json" is invalid against swagger specification 2.0. see errors :

  • some references could not be resolved in spec. First found: object has no key "offlineAttributes"

I have corrected files (the ones go-swagger validates) and if you want I can provide them to you as PR.
Timofei Bolshakov, timofei.bolshakov@docusign.com

@tbolsh
Copy link
Author

tbolsh commented Jan 14, 2021

That's the utility: https://github.com/go-swagger/go-swagger

@aymanbagabas
Copy link

I can confirm the same problem, OfflineAttributes type is not defined in the specs.

image
(Taken from Swagger Editor)

@pimterry
Copy link

I've just hit this too - that broken ref makes the spec currently unusable by most tools, since it's impossible to dereference. @RajRele @mmallis87 is it possible to get this fixed?

aymanbagabas added a commit to myhealthily/DocuSignAPI.swift that referenced this issue Apr 13, 2021
@mjbarton712
Copy link

Also ran into this

@kolesnick
Copy link

Have the same issue. Quite unfortunate :/

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jan 19, 2023

Hello,

Recently I ran into this same issue when trying to generate a client for Elixir/OTP and my solution was to edit the swagger file locally and just remove this definition before generating the code. That didn't give me any trouble in the final application, so I assume this type is not currently used for anything.

Any update on this issue?

@tbolsh
Copy link
Author

tbolsh commented Jan 20, 2023

Will be fixed in the next version (23.1.00.00) - Dev Center returned this to me (I forgot about this issue completely).
I will create a PR today.
Workaround: manually edit swagger file and insert following definition between "oauthAccess": and "page":

    "offlineAttributes": {
      "description": "Reserved for DocuSign use.",
      "type": "object",
      "properties": {
        "accountEsignId": {
          "description": "A GUID identifying the account associated with the consumer disclosure",
          "type": "string"
        },
        "deviceModel": {
          "description": "A string containing information about the model of the device used for offline signing.",
          "type": "string"
        },
        "deviceName": {
          "description": "A string containing information about the type of device used for offline signing.",
          "type": "string"
        },
        "gpsLatitude": {
          "description": "A string containing the latitude of the device location at the time of signing.",
          "type": "string"
        },
        "gpsLongitude": {
          "description": "A string containing the longitude of the device location at the time of signing.",
          "type": "string"
        },
        "offlineSigningHash": {
          "description": "",
          "type": "string"
        }
      }
    },

See the screenshot:
Screenshot 2023-01-20 at 10 30 35 AM

@nathany-copia
Copy link

Offline Attributes are defined in esignature.rest.swagger-v2.1.json now. Tested after #72 was merged.

I haven't tried the other file.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants