Add @PartFilename config - on/off, value, value suffix

[patr1kt0th]

Fixes: #435

[hbelmiro]

@patr1kt0th for you to run the RESTEasy Reactive tests locally:

cd integration-tests
mvn clean install -Presteasy-reactive
mvn verify -Presteasy-reactive

[patr1kt0th]

@hbelmiro thanks, I've already prepared a "fix" and split the test classes (classic & reactive), but I was/am fighting with a compilation error, so I'll try your suggestion this evening and let's see... will get back to you as soon as I have something new

[patr1kt0th]

@hbelmiro, @ricardozanini, please check. It worked locally, so hopefully there won't be any problems.

But I have one question... I did the new config options in a similar way the others are done, but I was thinking whether it wouldn't be better to put all PartFilename related config under a part-filename key and use/rename them for example like this:

• quarkus.openapi-generator.codegen.(spec.xyz).partfile-name.generate=true|false
• quarkus.openapi-generator.codegen.(spec.xyz).partfile-name.value=<some-value>
• quarkus.openapi-generator.codegen.(spec.xyz).partfile-name.add-field-name-to-value=true|false (because I don't like the part-filename-value-suffix that much)

What do you think?

[hbelmiro]

Thank you for this contribution @patr1kt0th. Very good job!
I just left a comment regarding where you placed the dependencies for the test.

And one picky suggestion: it seems you can avoid code duplication in tests. Maybe using parameterized tests or just extracting common parts to a different method. IDK, it's up to you and totally optional. If you want to leave it as it is, that's fine for me.

[hbelmiro]

We declare dependencies that are specific for RESTEasy Reactive or Classic in its equivalent profile in integration-tests/pom.xml. I'm not sure about resteasy-multipart-provider, but you can move at least quarkus-resteasy-reactive-common to there.

[patr1kt0th]

Thanks for the info, I noticed it, but I did not want to put them there, as they're (only) relevant to the part-filename tests and I didn't want to influence the rest of the tests.

I need them to be able to compile the tests as they're checking both types of annotations and I couldn't figure out, how to do it in a more elegant way. Or maybe I'm just doing something wrong?

Btw. I think the quarkus-resteasy-reactive-common should already be part of quarkus-rest-client-reactive-jackson which you already have there.

[patr1kt0th]

Thanks for the feedback, @hbelmiro. I fully agree with the picky suggestion... I didn't want to spend too much time with it, I assume. But I improved it a bit, please check.

I also fixed the typo and the README's format and I tried to implement the suggestion I made earlier = introducing the part-filename config group, but it did not work as I imagined it (it worked, but there were some warnings), so I just renamed the "suffix" config parameter.

[patr1kt0th]

Oh, I just noticed I messed up the README.md file. @hbelmiro, can you please tell me what kind of MD settings you use in IntelliJ? Is it documented somewhere? Thanks.

[hbelmiro]

@patr1kt0th we don't have any specific MD settings. As long as you don't mess it up too much, that's fine (which doesn't seem to be the case 😆).
I'll review it ASAP.

[patr1kt0th]

Thanks @hbelmiro, I reverted the messed-up formatting and hopefully fixed all the issues it caused.

[patr1kt0th]

Thanks for the review and the suggestions/fixes @ricardozanini 👍

[ricardozanini]

@hbelmiro as your leave gift, can u take a final look?

[hbelmiro]

@all-contributors please add @patr1kt0th for code
@all-contributors please add @patr1kt0th for test

[allcontributors]

@hbelmiro

I've put up a pull request to add @patr1kt0th! 🎉

[patr1kt0th]

Thanks for your cooperation, guys 🤝

[hbelmiro]

@all-contributors please add @patr1kt0th for code

[allcontributors]

@hbelmiro

I've put up a pull request to add @patr1kt0th! 🎉