Added support for multipart form data in OpenAPI-to-JAX-RS generator by lpieprzyk · Pull Request #391 · Apicurio/apicurio-codegen

lpieprzyk · 2026-02-01T19:21:27Z

No description provided.

lpieprzyk · 2026-02-01T19:24:51Z

core/src/main/java/io/apicurio/hub/api/codegen/jaxrs/OpenApi2CodegenVisitor.java

+        // Try to extract method name from path segment
+        if (currentPath != null && currentPath.length() > 0) {
+            String[] pathSegments = currentPath.split("/");
+            if (pathSegments.length > 0) {
+                String lastSegment = pathSegments[pathSegments.length - 1];
+                if (lastSegment != null && lastSegment.trim().length() > 0) {
+                    // Remove path parameters (e.g., {id}) and sanitize
+                    String sanitized = lastSegment.replaceAll("\\{[^}]*\\}", "").replaceAll("\\W", "");
+                    if (sanitized.length() > 0) {
+                        return sanitized;
+                    }
+                }
+            }
+        }


@EricWittmann is this okay here? I needed to add this, because the generated method was unexpectedly named "generatedMethod1". I also edited the chines character test accordingly.

It's fine to add it here, but maybe we need to check for conflicts with names generated the other way?

Maybe, I missed something, but all tests still run. Is there a specific test which covers the name generated the other way?

Most of the tests cover the name generated from the operationId - but if there is an operationId with the same value as what is produced by this new code path, then we would have a conflict. I guess we would need a new test for that - basically an OpenAPI with an Operation that has an operationId that is the same as another operation without an operationId that will get resolved using this new approach.

…uestBodyProcessor` for clarity

EricWittmann

I love this! You've done a lot of work here. I would need to dig a lot more into this space to really give this a proper review, but it looks pretty good overall. I have some comments/requests for changes. In addition to those, here is some high level feedback.

The biggest issue is that it's fully coupled to OpenAPI 3.1. Unless we are auto-converting the spec to OpenAPI 3.1 before running this code, we'll need to support both 3.0 and 3.1. Are we auto-converting to 3.1?! We might be...

Maybe some error test cases would be useful:
- Invalid schema types
- Missing required fields
- Null schemas
- Non-multipart content types
- Mixed content types (multipart + json)

core/src/test/java/io/apicurio/hub/api/codegen/OpenApi2JaxRsTest.java

core/src/main/java/io/apicurio/hub/api/codegen/OpenApi2JaxRs.java

core/src/main/java/io/apicurio/hub/api/codegen/jaxrs/MultipartFormDataRequestBodyProcessor.java

core/src/main/java/io/apicurio/hub/api/codegen/OpenApi2JaxRs.java

core/src/main/java/io/apicurio/hub/api/codegen/jaxrs/MultipartFormDataRequestBodyProcessor.java

core/src/main/java/io/apicurio/hub/api/codegen/jaxrs/OpenApi2CodegenVisitor.java

EricWittmann · 2026-02-10T15:02:14Z

core/src/main/java/io/apicurio/hub/api/codegen/jaxrs/OpenApi2CodegenVisitor.java

+        // Try to extract method name from path segment
+        if (currentPath != null && currentPath.length() > 0) {
+            String[] pathSegments = currentPath.split("/");
+            if (pathSegments.length > 0) {
+                String lastSegment = pathSegments[pathSegments.length - 1];
+                if (lastSegment != null && lastSegment.trim().length() > 0) {
+                    // Remove path parameters (e.g., {id}) and sanitize
+                    String sanitized = lastSegment.replaceAll("\\{[^}]*\\}", "").replaceAll("\\W", "");
+                    if (sanitized.length() > 0) {
+                        return sanitized;
+                    }
+                }
+            }
+        }


It's fine to add it here, but maybe we need to check for conflicts with names generated the other way?

EricWittmann · 2026-02-23T20:43:16Z

Hey @lpieprzyk - I was out on vacation last week. What's the status of this PR? Ready to go? All requested changes applied? Or not yet?

lpieprzyk · 2026-02-24T12:08:31Z

Hey @lpieprzyk - I was out on vacation last week. What's the status of this PR? Ready to go? All requested changes applied? Or not yet?

I still have a small bug I’m working on, but I hope to be done by the end of the week.

EricWittmann · 2026-02-24T17:53:18Z

Cool no worries. I'm not pushing you - I just wanted to make sure you weren't waiting on me. :)

lpieprzyk · 2026-03-03T09:42:34Z

core/src/main/java/io/apicurio/hub/api/codegen/jaxrs/OpenApi2CodegenVisitor.java

+    /**
+     * Checks for duplicate method names within the current interface and throws a
+     * {@link IllegalStateException} if a conflict is detected. This can occur when multiple
+     * operations resolve to the same method name, typically due to missing or identical
+     * {@code operationId} values in the OpenAPI specification.
+     *
+     * @param method the new method to check against existing methods in the current interface
+     * @throws IllegalStateException if a method with the same name already exists in the interface
+     */
+    private void checkForDuplicateMethodNames(CodegenJavaMethod method) {
+        String newMethodName = method.getName();
+        for (CodegenJavaMethod existingMethod : this._currentInterface.getMethods()) {
+            if (existingMethod.getName().equals(newMethodName)) {
+                throw new IllegalStateException(
+                    "Duplicate method name '" + newMethodName + "' detected in interface '"
+                    + this._currentInterface.getName() + "'. "
+                    + "Operation at path '" + currentPath + "' (HTTP " + method.getMethod()
+                    + ") resolves to the same method name as an existing operation. "
+                    + "Consider adding a unique 'operationId' to one of the conflicting operations."
+                );
+            }
+        }
+    }
+


@EricWittmann Is this okay with you? In my opinion it is a configuration error in the spec file, if there are two endpoints with the same name. Or should I generate the endpoints with a counter suffix?

lpieprzyk · 2026-03-03T10:02:29Z

@EricWittmann I added a testcase for a 3.0.0 Spec. And it seems like we are auto-converting :D
I also added test cases for the edge cases you listed. Are the cases handled as you expected or do they need changes?

EricWittmann · 2026-03-03T15:56:36Z

Test cases look good to me! 👍 Let me know if/when you think it's ready to merge and I'll take a final look before merging.

lpieprzyk · 2026-03-03T16:17:20Z

I think all requested changes (if I didn´t miss anything) are done.

EricWittmann · 2026-03-03T16:53:41Z

Merged! 🎉

mcruzdev · 2026-03-05T17:11:32Z

Hi @EricWittmann, could you generate a new release?

EricWittmann · 2026-03-05T18:40:39Z

In progress.

lpieprzyk added 2 commits February 1, 2026 19:59

Add support for multipart form data in OpenAPI-to-JAX-RS generator

3e4ce6a

Add support for multipart form data in OpenAPI-to-JAX-RS generator

b0c738a

lpieprzyk commented Feb 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

lpieprzyk mentioned this pull request Feb 1, 2026

Cannot generate MultipartForm server-side API #347

Closed

Rename MultipartFormDataRequestBodyCreator to `MultipartFormDataReq…

5cb943c

…uestBodyProcessor` for clarity

EricWittmann requested changes Feb 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

Some error fixes & pull request change requests

18d70a8

lpieprzyk commented Mar 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

EricWittmann merged commit aba7c61 into Apicurio:main Mar 3, 2026
2 checks passed

lpieprzyk mentioned this pull request Mar 4, 2026

Cannot generate MultipartForm server-side API quarkiverse/quarkus-openapi-generator#1154

Closed

Conversation

lpieprzyk commented Feb 1, 2026

Uh oh!

lpieprzyk Feb 1, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

EricWittmann Feb 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lpieprzyk Feb 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

EricWittmann Feb 12, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

EricWittmann left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

EricWittmann Feb 10, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

EricWittmann commented Feb 23, 2026

Uh oh!

lpieprzyk commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

EricWittmann commented Feb 24, 2026

Uh oh!

lpieprzyk Mar 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

EricWittmann Mar 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

lpieprzyk commented Mar 3, 2026

Uh oh!

EricWittmann commented Mar 3, 2026

Uh oh!

lpieprzyk commented Mar 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

EricWittmann commented Mar 3, 2026

Uh oh!

mcruzdev commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

EricWittmann commented Mar 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants