Properly handle readOnly and writeOnly properties

[tajnymag]

Describe the solution you'd like
As described at original issue and pull request openapi-typescript-codegen does not handle readOnly and writeOnly properties of openapi schemas.

With these properties, it is easier to model properties not for modifiable models.

OpenAPI example:

type: object
properties:
  id:
    # Returned by GET, not used in POST/PUT/PATCH
    type: integer
    readOnly: true
  username:
    type: string
  password:
    # Used in POST/PUT/PATCH, not returned by GET
    type: string
    writeOnly: true

Expected example types (not necessary to be generated separately, as @tiholic suggested in his PR):

UserGetResponse: { id: number, username?: string }
UserPostRequest: { id: number, username?, password?: string }
UserPutRequest: { id: number, username?, password?: string }
UserPatchRequest: { id: number, username?, password?: string }

[mrlubos]

@tajnymag just want to clarify the expected example types. Aren't they meant to be like this?

UserGetResponse: { id?: number, username?: string }
UserPostRequest: { username?: string, password?: string }
UserPutRequest: { username?: string, password?: string }
UserPatchRequest: { username?: string, password?: string }

[tajnymag]

@tajnymag just want to clarify the expected example types. Aren't they meant to be like this?

UserGetResponse: { id?: number, username?: string }
UserPostRequest: { username?: string, password?: string }
UserPutRequest: { username?: string, password?: string }
UserPatchRequest: { username?: string, password?: string }

Yeah, they should. You are right.

[mrlubos]

@tajnymag okay let me think about this. I pushed some changes yesterday that extract types for data objects when using --useOptions, more cool stuff to follow.

P.S. I believe --useOptions should be the default setting, and plan to support mostly that flag in the future

[mrlubos]

@tajnymag a little update: this will work only with --useOptions, so please make sure you're using that flag. Out of interest, are you able to share your config?

I explored this a bit and the conclusion is that we will need to rework types quite a bit, it's not a quick fix. That pull request you linked doesn't implement it properly either and I'd rather wait until it works as expected than go through multiple iterations here

[tajnymag]

@mrlubos Unfortunately I don't have anything to share. As I really needed multipart forms supported I've used the official openapi generator. Similarly, as the readOnly and writeOnly properties weren't well supported by any generator I had found, I manually created schemas for requests and responses.

[mrlubos]

@tajnymag are you not currently using this package then?

[tajnymag]

@tajnymag are you not currently using this package then?

Unfortunately I am not. I would like to though. The official generators are lacking in so many other ways.

[mrlubos]

Why don't you use https://github.com/drwpow/openapi-typescript @tajnymag?

[tajnymag]

Why don't you use https://github.com/drwpow/openapi-typescript @tajnymag?

I didn't want to hardcode any urls into the client. Also I subjectively dislike the API of drwpow/openapi-typescript

[mrlubos]

Unfortunately I am not. I would like to though. The official generators are lacking in so many other ways.

Don't worry, we'll get there. Keep listing any issues you're seeing elsewhere and we'll figure it out!