Created by: sebastien-rosset
This is adding a new "HTTP signature" security schemes (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cavage-http-signatures/)? HTTP signatures is still a IETF draft, and hopefully it will become an official RFC this year. On one hand one may argue it shouldn’t be added because it’s still a draft, but on the other hand it is already being used by multiple products, so there may be benefits to support it. It is possible multiple organizations are independently adding the same security scheme.
Ideally one way to address the problem would be to make it possible to add new security schemes (such as HTTP signature) without being required to fork the OpenAPITools repo. But given the current code structure, it’s not clear to me how this could be achieved. Adding new security schemes involves surgery in multiple locations (Java codegen, templates, mustache tags).
I raised this point in Slack before opening the PR.
I suggest merging #5049 before this PR.
PR checklist
-
Read the contribution guidelines. -
If contributing template-only or documentation-only changes which will change sample output, build the project before. -
Run the shell script(s) under ./bin/(or Windows batch scripts under.\bin\windows) to update Petstore samples related to your fix. This is important, as CI jobs will verify all generator outputs of your HEAD commit, and these must match the expectations made by your contribution. You only need to run./bin/{LANG}-petstore.sh,./bin/openapi3/{LANG}-petstore.shif updating the code or mustache templates for a language ({LANG}) (e.g. php, ruby, python, etc). -
File the PR against the correct branch: master,4.3.x,5.0.x. Default:master. -
Copy the technical committee to review the pull request if your PR is targeting a particular programming language.