Skip to content

Conversation

@baywet
Copy link
Member

@baywet baywet commented Oct 14, 2025

fixes #146
fixes #121
closes #140

Hi everyone,
I've tried to get to the simplest common denominator, and incorporate some of the feedback that was already provided:

  • We want the ability to use what's already in the document to update the document.
  • We want single purpose actions, that are mutually exclusive, atomic, and can be combined like lego bricks.
  • We want our "action keywords" to be verbs.

I'm proposing to add a copy field to the action, that's mutually exclusive with remove or update. It's functionally equivalent to the update field except that it uses a JSON path to source the JSON Node instead of defining it inline.

I know there was some additional thinking about templating expressions, sourcing from env variables etc... But I think those can be considered orthogonal and be added in a separate PR by their champions. I'd like to get the smallest possible unit that brings a meaningful contribution through.

As an image is better than a thousand words, here are a couple of examples.

Copying a node to a node that already exists

overlay: 1.1.0
info:
  title: Merge an existing path item with another one
  version: 1.0.0
actions:
  - target: '$.paths["/bar"]'
    copy:  '$.paths["/foo"]'

Here the existing foo path item properties are being copied to the bar path item.

Copying a node to a node that DOES NOT already exists

overlay: 1.1.0
info:
  title: Merge an existing path item with another one, ensuring the target exists
  version: 1.0.0
actions:
  - target: '$.paths'
    update: { "bar": {} }
  - target: '$.paths["/bar"]'
    copy:  '$.paths["/foo"]'

Moving an item

overlay: 1.1.0
info:
  title: Move an existing path item to another one
  version: 1.0.0
actions:
   # optionally add a remove action to ensure "a clean slate" for the bar path item
  - target: '$.paths'
    update: { "bar": {} }
  - target: '$.paths["/bar"]'
    copy:  '$.paths["/foo"]'
  - target: '$.paths["/foo"]'
    remove: true

A couple of todos if that gets consensus:

  • We need to stand up a v1.1-dev branch, and this needs to be rebased
  • We need to add an example in the spec
  • We need to update the schema
  • We need to add some tests
  • Editorial information (version, table, etc...) need to be applied

@baywet
Copy link
Member Author

baywet commented Oct 14, 2025

CC @ThomasRooney @lornajane @mikeschinkel

@baywet
Copy link
Member Author

baywet commented Oct 15, 2025

Here is an experimental implementation, it was fairly straightforward :)
BinkyLabs/openapi-overlays-dotnet#105

Copy link

@ThomasRooney ThomasRooney left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I personally really like this. It's simple nomenclature and implementation.

Annecdotally to me the alternative approach of using runtime expressions is more powerful in some ways, but also limiting in others. We've been using them at Speakeasy to represent complex concepts in Arazzo but unfortunately we've had to build escape hatches for places where they don't work (specifically the lack of conditionals). I'd propose we accept this as a minor version bump, and do that as an independent addition to this change as part of future work given a set of differing use-cases.

@mikekistler
Copy link
Contributor

cc: @RobertCraigie @yjp20

Would be great to get your feedback on this one.

@baywet baywet changed the base branch from main to v1.1-dev October 16, 2025 16:36
@baywet baywet requested a review from a team as a code owner October 20, 2025 12:58

The properties of the `update` object MUST be compatible with the target object referenced by the JSONPath key. When the Overlay document is applied, the properties in the `update` object are recursively merged with the properties in the target object with the same names; new properties are added to the target object.

The properties of the resolved `copy` object MUST be compatible with the target object referenced by the JSONPath key. When the Overlay document is applied, the properties in the resolved `copy` object are recursively merged with the properties in the target object with the same names; new properties are added to the target object.
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

from the meeting, compatible is not explicitly defined, but this should be done as a separate PR, let's create a separate issue for that.

@mikeschinkel
Copy link

mikeschinkel commented Oct 21, 2025

@baywet — #justfyi I am working on an updated overlay.md to illustrate what I mentioned on the call today. I am adding some examples and changing some headings for consistency because with a table of examples the inconsistency stands out more. I also changed some text from passive to active voice because the ghost of my technical writing professor in university is always sitting on my shoulder commenting on my passive voice.

Hope to have this available very soon, though I am not 100% sure how to submit a PR to a PR. Should I submit a PR to baywet/Overlay-Specification/feat/copy-node and then mention that I did so here?

@baywet baywet requested a review from a team as a code owner October 21, 2025 18:51
@baywet
Copy link
Member Author

baywet commented Oct 21, 2025

For anybody following along, thanks for bearing with us while we clean up the branches/versions story. I've just "temporary aligned" things before retargeting to main (pending on #183).
This now should be much easier to review for "just the copy stuff", we're down to 3 modified files in the diff view :) (from almost 40 this morning)

@baywet
Copy link
Member Author

baywet commented Oct 21, 2025

@baywet — #justfyi I am working on an updated overlay.md to illustrate what I mentioned on the call today. I am adding some examples and changing some headings for consistency because with a table of examples the inconsistency stands out more. I also changed some text from passive to active voice because the ghost of my technical writing professor in university is always sitting on my shoulder commenting on my passive voice.

Hope to have this available very soon, though I am not 100% sure how to submit a PR to a PR. Should I submit a PR to baywet/Overlay-Specification/feat/copy-node and then mention that I did so here?

@mikeschinkel Thanks for doing this, yet a PR to my feature branch should be fine if it's a large set of changes, I just pushed a few new things since the call FYI. If the changes are smaller, suggestions (comments with suggestion) in this PR can work as well.

Co-authored-by: Ralf Handl <[email protected]>
@mikeschinkel
Copy link

mikeschinkel commented Oct 21, 2025

@baywet — I am getting my IDE flagging x-oai-traits: ['paged'] as not valid and as I am not familiar with the syntax I asked ChatGPT and it said this, so you might want to look at it more closely?

The selector $.paths.*.get[[email protected]] for the x-oai-traits example currently defines ['paged'] (array), but the JSONPath selector checks for .paged, implying an object. It might not match as written. You may want to verify whether the intended shape was an object ({ paged: true }) or adjust the JSONPath for array membership.

@mikeschinkel
Copy link

mikeschinkel commented Oct 21, 2025

@baywet — Here is the PR to your PR: baywet#1

I added a table listing the examples, and the rest of the changes followed from that to improve structure, clarity, and consistency (with no normative changes).

Summary of changeds

  • Added a quick-reference table summarizing all examples
  • Promoted Examples to a top-level non-normative section
  • Added Array Move and Array Replace examples
  • Standardized headings and ordering (Update, Copy, Move, Array)
  • Adjusted anchors, grammar, and appendix order (File Naming → A, Revision History → B)

All content above ## Examples remains unchanged except to fix broken links.

@ralfhandl
Copy link
Contributor

I am getting my IDE flagging x-oai-traits: ['paged'] as not valid

@mikeschinkel PR #118 contains a fix for that example.

Copy link
Contributor

@ralfhandl ralfhandl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@baywet Please re-target to main, if possible

@ralfhandl ralfhandl changed the base branch from v1.1-dev to main October 28, 2025 19:44
@ralfhandl ralfhandl marked this pull request as draft October 28, 2025 19:46
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wrong folder, should be v1.1-dev.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should not be necessary

Copy link
Contributor

@ralfhandl ralfhandl Oct 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oops, we don’t want to rename a published spec. Maybe renaming to 1.1.0-dev.md will help?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wrong folder

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

8 participants