Jay Dorsey

Results 24 comments of Jay Dorsey

Ruby 3.x changes the behavior of [keyword arguments](https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2019/12/12/separation-of-positional-and-keyword-arguments-in-ruby-3-0/). I suspect this is the root cause of the error. You can see this similarly reported for [rails 5](https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/40938#issuecomment-751357907) I confirmed that...

A few things jumped out, comparing your configuration against mine (which works as expected): Do you have an `openapi` definition in your `swagger_helper.rb` file? In my examples, which are nearly...

> Running `be rspec spec/integration/ --format documentation --format Rswag::Specs::SwaggerFormatter` will run the tests, and additionally generate the swagger doc. I had a similar but slightly different issue but this solution...

I think allowing the different components would be super useful. I've noticed the same behavior but didn't realize there were different component types until I read the link you shared...

The `in: "cookie"` syntax looks incorrect to me; it should probably be `in: :header`. A cookie is simply a type of header attribute/value In order to set it, you'll also...

I'll test this tomorrow, but I think you should be able to use something similar to the strategy you'd use to send an authorization header (since a cookie is just...

Confirmed, this works fine with a request spec, with the `cookie` security definition above. ``` # spec/requests/health_spec.rb describe 'Health' do path '/health' do get 'Get health' do security [cookie: []]...

I haven't tested this, but the docs make it seem like you can do something like `security [basic: [], cookie: []]` (or apikey instead of basic or whatever you use)...

I think this might be related to #444? There's a code example there that might help address this.

RSpec creates methods based on the metadata key names and this one is specifically delegated to look for a key in the metadata ([here](https://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/blob/main/lib/rspec/core/example.rb#L48-L66)) You might have enough information inside...