Carsten Wickner

Hi @cowtowncoder, Just warming up this five-year-old issue. I had a look into the code to see what needs to be done, but I'm unsure how to best handle it....

Hi @nerdgore, Sure, that is possible. You can adapt the `getSchemaAnnotationValue()` method from the `Swagger2Module`: https://github.com/victools/jsonschema-generator/blob/0f1c95bcb2d761e3de7a6bbf7a8cfef3f67d70b4/jsonschema-module-swagger-2/src/main/java/com/github/victools/jsonschema/module/swagger2/Swagger2Module.java#L469-L486 Your specific configuration would look like this then: ```java builder.forFields() .withInstanceAttributeOverride((collectedMemberAttributes, member, context) ->...

The idea of it being serialised one way the first time it is encountered vs. subsequent encounters is a bit daunting. But if you use it `alwaysAsId = true` I...

Hi @abhinavcode, `EXTERNAL_PROPERTY` is a tricky one to handle generically, that's why it's not yet supported by the `JacksonModule` out-of-the-box. I'm open for pull requests though. 😉 However, it seems...

Hi @mbenz89, I've looked into this a bit and came up with a CustomDefinitionProvider, which I considered introducing under a new standard `Option`, but got some doubts on whether I'm...

Hi @cbuchmann, The starting point would be to determine what configuration is producing this line in the first subschema: ```json "additionalProperties" : false ``` That is blocking any additional properties...

Theoretically, that should be possible I guess. I can have a look. Generally speaking, I'm also in favor of pull requests. 😃

Now I remember why I did it like this. It avoids an endless loop that results in a `StackOverflowError`. Have to think about it again, but can't promise anything at...

I'm afraid not. The validation is working as it should. The first subschema forbids the "type" property. You could either remove the`"additionalProperties": false` or already declare the "type" property in...

Yes. There is already some post-processing going on (e.g. to merge unnecessary `allOf` parts), which could probably be enhanced somewhat. However, in this particular case, merging the two subschemas alters...