peter scholz
peter scholz
mmh "wrong" isn't the right word here, cause it is only a different ordering … / and this is always a running discussion, see for example here → https://github.com/ruby-grape/grape-swagger/pull/859 so...
thanks @dmoss18 … please can you quikcly fix the rubucop stuff
@dmoss18 … I updated the CI matrix … please have a look at the actual failures, thanks
one question, does the hiding of a route still work? mean do we have breaking changes with it?
@spaceraccoon … again sorry … please can you fix the conflicts, thanks
and maybe squash some of your PR … this one would be nice come together with https://github.com/ruby-grape/grape-swagger/pull/879
it depends on other gems you want to use with \ if you plan to use it togehter with grape-swagger, have a look here → [grape-swagger#using-grape-entities](https://github.com/ruby-grape/grape-swagger#using-grape-entities-)
for grape-swagger we had a similar discussion … one approach was, to define the header parameters for the request in the same manner as the other one, e.g.: ``` params...
thanks for finishing it ok will merge it, will see if the ordering discussion pops up again ;)
@mscrivo … actual, there is no such kind like a to do list for open steps but there are a bit of work on it, see the [OAPI-v3 branch](https://github.com/ruby-grape/grape-swagger/tree/oapi-3) feel...