Feature clarification request: multiple schemas

[melissag]

Hoping to clarify the documentation at https://openapi-ts.pages.dev/cli#multiple-schemas; the example provided in the section specifies the output for both apis to be ./openapi/openapi.ts, which implies to me that both api schemas would be merged into a single file. However, when I try this with my own api schemas, the output file is overwritten by each subsequent api declaration - the api which is alphabetically last will "win" the output file. Is this the expected behavior? If so, should the documentation be corrected to have distinct output paths?

[drwpow]

Ah if you’re looking to bundle schemas, then you should use the Redocly CLI bundle command. That needs to be run before openapi-typescript.

I’d welcome an addition to the docs that clarifies this (perhaps something like a tip added):

::: tip

This will preserve schemas 1:1 input:output. To bundle multiple schemas into one, use Redocly’s [bundle command](https://redocly.com/docs/resources/multi-file-definitions/#bundle)

:::

Feel free to adjust the wording 🙂

[mariusflorescu]

On the same topic what if we have:

• reference.json - which contains $defs
• openapi.yaml file that references the defs from the reference.json file

Is it possible to make it work? I don't see an example of this use case in the docs.

[melissag]

@drwpow Thanks for your response. In particular your call out that This will preserve schemas 1:1 input:output suggests to me that the existing documentation example should be updated in the following way:

Current

apis:
  core@v2:
    root: ./openapi/openapi.yaml
    x-openapi-ts:
      output: ./openapi/openapi.ts
  external@v1:
    root: ./openapi/external.yaml
    x-openapi-ts:
      output: ./openapi/openapi.ts

Updated

apis:
  core@v2:
    root: ./openapi/openapi.yaml
    x-openapi-ts:
      output: ./openapi/openapi.ts
  external@v1:
    root: ./openapi/external.yaml
    x-openapi-ts:
      output: ./openapi/external.ts  # note updated name

Does this make sense to you, or am I still confused on how this is meant to work?

[drwpow]

@melissag yes! Apologies for not even noticing the typo in the docs. Yes that’s confusing, and your proposal is exactly how it should work. Would welcome a PR if you have time!

[melissag]

Done, thanks for the guidance! Let me know if I goofed on anything in the PR process, not super familiar.

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue is stale because it has been open for 90 days with no activity. If there is no activity in the next 7 days, the issue will be closed.

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue was closed because it has been inactive for 7 days since being marked as stale. Please open a new issue if you believe you are encountering a related problem.