Add OpenAPI 3.1 support #590
Conversation
m-burgoyne
requested review from
tomkralidis,
dblodgett-usgs,
chris-little,
solson-nws,
ShaneMill1 and
iandruska-ibl
docs/AgreedDevelopmentProcesses.md
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should leave this as shall try to follow, or change to should follow
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should leave the OGC Boiler plate text 'as is
proposals/README.md
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want to tie ourselves strictly to this process? Perhaps shall or even should?
|
EDR API SWG 126 2025-01-09 agreed to merge next week, after further reviews. |
|
Just a reminder that this PR has more than just OpenAPI v3.1 support. It is basically V1.2. We would like to progress for an OAB review and merge this week. @dblodgett-usgs @tomkralidis @ShaneMill1 @solson-nws @iandruska-ibl and @cmheazel |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good!
My only comment (for a future PR) would be to consider OGC API - Features approach of specifying OpenAPI as both an abstract and concrete requirement: https://docs.ogc.org/DRAFTS/17-069r5.html#_requirements_class_openapi_specification (abstract class)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was a lot of good work. I'm not sure that it is entirely correct, but it's close enough to merge. A review of the merged draft for logical flow and completeness should identify any remaining issues.
Note: I would not have changed spatiotemporal to spatio-temporal.
No description provided.