Looking for: - Azure docker emulator, to stop creating Service Bus with my name for local development. - Azure alternative for AWS CDK is done? - Replacement for paid nuger packages are all done already? And many more areas that really need attention, but nuh. Yet another open and free library has to be copy-pasted under a different name.

because the point is that you have no alternative and will have to pay for it in 10 years

@@panbotukHuh?

I think as said in the video it looks like the team was concerned they were including an unmaintained project in templates. That also invites criticism. The reality is it's still just a template. You can add swashbuckle right back or use something else. Sure the templates make a huge impression on the developers, but in the end it's your code.

Paid packages are maintained at least. We have seen so many supply chain attacks popping up lately. Was it x something, that barely missed going into Linux core. But was found out by one curious Ms employee that noticed it took a few Ms longer than usual. This is a very serious threat, also look at what moq did. I welcome this change. Less dubious dependencies means more certified companies get to use the features.

Any more latency we're gonna have to bring out the span.

Hello everybody I'm naked and get ready to be blinded

I had the same though back when .NET5 was released.

But the thing is all APIs should have documentation, it would be a special case to not want it.

@@RandallEike the OpenAPI json should be industry standard - yes. But which HTML renderer you use should be up to you.

@@RandallEike OpenAPI is a perfect solution for that. I don't see what Swagger contributes specifically that makes it part of the pipeline.

Swashbuckle has multiple components, they're literally called out in the issue that Nick is showing on screen for a 1/3 of the video. The UI generation is JUST ONE one (albeit visible) of those components. Are you complaining that the mentioned swashbuckle packages were added to the web api templates? What do you mean by "making it a built in library" or "part of .NET"? It's a package like every other .net package out there, but it was added to the web TEMPLATE.

Not yet but they are working on it

It's in the description of the post under the Get source code option.

@@emmanuelgenga7421 thank you for this. I thought that was a typo... I was looking for a github link. lol

My thoughts exactly. Swagger (or any other OpenApi UI Provider) can still handle the presentation based on the spec file.

Maybe I'd misunderstood the video, but that's excatly what is going to happen, isn't it?

Let's hope so. If they don't stay in their own lane they're going to annoy some more OSS devs.

I use the UI a lot. It integrates fine with OpenID, specifically with Microsoft Entra (former Azure AD), so the authentication part is just clicking a button.

As a dev that's working with 3rd party APIs all the time I like the simplicity of typing /swagger and getting the complete documentation, examples and ability to do a quick and dirty test without any other tools. For a well commented API you don't really need actual docs to understand it and use it and swagger is frictionless and beter than mucking about in intellisense of a generated client or firing up yet another app like Insomnia.

UI is plenty useful. Mostly to see what kinds of requests and responses are valid.

Wym it's really easy to get it to work with jwt

@@CabbageYe Once you got a token, it's easy. But other api client tools also offer built in ways to get to the token in the first place, which always feels more useful since the token is short lived usually

You can just keep using the package. It's actively maintained and all. It's just not part of the official template, you don't have to remove it or stop using it.

I think you have misunderstood, you don't have to do anything. Swagger just won't come out of the box in new projects anymore.

Interesting take. What's missing that you needed to add manually?

I’m not OP, but I like to write the spec myself and use it for code generation.

Nothing is going to break. You can still use Swagger as much as you want.

@@spacemanjack777 Sorry, if I have to make additional effort to achieve already existing features, then this is degradation anyway.

@@SeymourRu Nah, you only think that way because you like Swagger. As of now you'll have to do extra work to get rid of it. It is wrong on so many levels that an official framework template depends on a random third party library (that could be abandonded at any given time). The correct solution would be for you to set up your own templates with your favorite go-to libraries.

​@@spacemanjack777 >because you like Swagger Well, why should I not? It provides required functionality without additional fuss, so, I see nothing wrong with it here. >It is wrong on so many levels that an official framework template depends on a random third party library This is not really important, unless the source code of framework becomes closed. Oh, wait...it was once already. I think you know, what happened next >that could be abandonded at any given time Anything can be abandonded at any time, this does not matter at all. Just count how many times Google\MS\whatever company abandoned something that was `official` and `original`. If you will check my initial comment, may be you will catch up an idea that before removing anything it is always expected thar something equivalent in return will be given, not only provision of basic stuff. Way more better idea is to do some kind of customization process during project initial creature. May be just add one another template with pre-configured swagger - it is still much better than just remove something good. Then, one who does not need it - will not get it, one who require it - will not spend time for this preparation stuff. Ofc you can not customize everything, but some things could be just like this.

The video explains it pretty well IMO.

Can't compete with Microsoft though if their in-house package is any good.

@@marcotroster8247Then stop treating it as a competition. Just produce damn good software... as they should be doing anyway.

Swagger isn’t a design specification it’s an as built document for your api consumers. It doesn’t stop you from writing a spec before coding, it just generates docs for your api consumers from your code… which is honestly more important than writing a spec in the first place as often user documents match specifications but not what’s really implemented in an api. Often times specs are written before the true requirements of an application are fully known, when reality disagrees with them, the api is unceremoniously forced to meet reality and diverges from the spec, then often no one goes back and updates the spec, and the api documents that were generated from it are thus faulty. To be honest detailed specs are problematic, usually there are only a few things that are truly critical, after that they often tie your hands preventing good api design that requires the ability to be flexible especially in the initial release (before you have a bunch of api users). You could argue that the spec writer should be a good api designer in the first place, but even in that case, they have much less time to write the spec than the api and they still know less than they will during implementation. Repeatedly iterating on overly detailed spec wastes time. It’s better to stay generic and let a tool like this generate detailed docs.

you are missing the point of Swagger.... The idea of Swagger is that it is used by outsiders, people learning what your API is and how it works.

@@quelqunderandom6143 I still don't care about it, I don't need that, theres a lot of other ways to do that same thing, and even better. Sorry but I am not sad with it going away. I didn't miss the point about anything.

@@quelqunderandom6143 Don't assume that only because I talked about what matters to me about it, means I don't know it, I didn't miss the point about anything, I don't like assumptions, so refrain from doing so. Theres plenty of better alternatives out there that does the same thing, it being forced on you with a Template makes no sense and I am glad it is going away. I never liked the idea of Microsoft packing things in by default to begin with, and yes I know there are templates without it (before you jump to new assumptions).

Forced by a template? You can just remove the Swagger stuff from the template. It takes less than a minute. Jesus people are so winy.

As far as I understood, you can just add the nuget package and configure it manually. It just won't come in the template.

@@FelipeV3444 but I prefer remove by default the UI, that add by default. It is just my personal opinion, that doesn't need to be right decision.

"do a lot of work" you want to be replaced by AI that can do your job in 5 seconds? stop complaining about having to do just a tiny bit of work, when you risk losing it all together. 😆

Doesn't seem like everyone likes swagger, to me; this is the first comment that I saw that expressed disappointment. But nothing's stopping you from using it. This decision also gives other devs a chance to shine. Just like swagger doesn't want to compete with MS, other devs don't want to compete with swagger.

​@@emerynoel567 this should be the pinned comment for the whole saga. Why ship a dependency that is not used by all. Liked or not liked is another question. So many projects don't outright have a need for swagger UI

Why would you want to mock static methods?

I have never had the need to mock a static method. In fact, I try to stay away from mocking as much as possible. I see it as a bad practice.

Swashbuckle wasn't a "good working" project so maybe that's just the difference between an informed and uninformed opinion.