haolingdong-msft

TCGC usage and access adoption case study

This document is the remaining case study on TCGC usage and access adoption, it does not include the spread cases as it already covers in another gist.

Cases

1. response's header schema has public access in TCGC

we will not track usage for response header schema, see code. thus we will not generate the model. But TCGC return the model with access public, so we will generate the model after adopting TCGC which is incorrect. Test case:

haolingdong-msft

Adopting TCGC usage and access for spread and flatten body cases

Terminology

As flatten or spread concepts are quite confusing, this document will use below definition:

• spread body case: it means spreading a model using ..., e.g. op(...AModel)
• flatten body case: it means defining request body without @body and not using spread syntax ..., e.g. op(a: AModel)

TCGC logic

If a body parameter is defined without @body, TCGC will create an anonymous model with spread usage for it, unless it is like case1, where there is only single spread body param, it will not create anonymous model, but reuse the spreaded model.