Add tests to verify yaml conversions work

[jeffy-mathew]

User description

Description

This PR adds a test to verify that no additional yaml struct tags aren't required on OAS structs to support yaml while defining Tyk OAS APIs.

kin-openapi supports parsing yaml openapi specifications making use of json struct tags.
kin-openapi/go.mod at cea0a13b906a708102947f95b9b09d631ff60976 · getkin/kin-openapi it can be seen that kin-openapi is using GitHub - oasdiff/yaml: A better way to marshal and unmarshal YAML in Golang which explains here that it converts yaml ↔︎ json internally. This means we don’t have to have additional struct tags for yaml.

Related Issue

https://tyktech.atlassian.net/browse/TT-13783

Motivation and Context

How This Has Been Tested

Screenshots (if appropriate)

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Refactoring or add test (improvements in base code or adds test coverage to functionality)

Checklist

• I ensured that the documentation is up to date
• I explained why this PR updates go.mod in detail with reasoning why it's required
• I would like a code coverage CI quality gate exception and have explained why

---

PR Type

Tests, Enhancement

---

Description

• Added a new test TestYaml to validate YAML and JSON conversions.

• Introduced dependency on github.com/oasdiff/yaml for YAML handling.

• Updated go.mod and go.sum to include new YAML-related dependencies.

• Enhanced test coverage for OpenAPI and Tyk extension integration.

---

Changes walkthrough 📝

	Relevant files
Tests	oas_test.go Added `TestYaml` for YAML and JSON conversion validation  apidef/oas/oas_test.go Added a new test TestYaml for YAML and JSON conversion. Validated Tyk extension integration with OpenAPI structures. Used yaml.JSONToYAML for JSON to YAML conversion. Ensured equality between original and converted objects. +54/-0
Dependencies	go.mod Updated dependencies for YAML handling                                      go.mod Added github.com/oasdiff/yaml as a direct dependency. Added github.com/oasdiff/yaml3 as an indirect dependency. +2/-0      go.sum Updated checksums for new YAML dependencies                            go.sum Added checksums for github.com/oasdiff/yaml and github.com/oasdiff/yaml3. Updated dependency metadata for YAML-related libraries. +4/-0

---

💡 PR-Agent usage: Comment /help "your question" on any pull request to receive relevant information

[buger]

A JIRA Issue ID is missing from your branch name, PR title and PR description! 🦄

Your branch: exp/yaml-conversions

Your PR title: Add tests to verify yaml conversions work

Your PR description:

Description

Related Issue

Motivation and Context

How This Has Been Tested

Screenshots (if appropriate)

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Refactoring or add test (improvements in base code or adds test coverage to functionality)

Checklist

• I ensured that the documentation is up to date
• I explained why this PR updates go.mod in detail with reasoning why it's required
• I would like a code coverage CI quality gate exception and have explained why

If this is your first time contributing to this repository - welcome!

---

Please refer to jira-lint to get started.

Without the JIRA Issue ID in your branch name you would lose out on automatic updates to JIRA via SCM; some GitHub status checks might fail.

Valid sample branch names:

‣ feature/shiny-new-feature--mojo-10'
‣ 'chore/changelogUpdate_mojo-123'
‣ 'bugfix/fix-some-strange-bug_GAL-2345'

[github-actions]

PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

Here are some key observations to aid the review process:

⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 3 🔵🔵🔵⚪⚪

🧪 PR contains tests

🔒 No security concerns identified

⚡ Recommended focus areas for review Possible Issue The test TestYaml includes type assertions (e.g., assert.True(t, ok)) for converting int to float64 in multiple places. This could lead to runtime errors if the type assertion fails. Consider adding more robust type checking or handling unexpected types gracefully. for k, v := range tykExt.Server.Authentication.SecuritySchemes { intVal, ok := v.(int) assert.True(t, ok) tykExt.Server.Authentication.SecuritySchemes[k] = float64(intVal) } for k, v := range tykExt.Middleware.Global.PluginConfig.Data.Value { intVal, ok := v.(int) assert.True(t, ok) tykExt.Middleware.Global.PluginConfig.Data.Value[k] = float64(intVal) Dependency Validation The new dependency github.com/oasdiff/yaml has been introduced. Ensure that this dependency is stable, maintained, and does not introduce any potential compatibility or security issues. "github.com/oasdiff/yaml"

[github-actions]

API Changes

no api changes detected

[github-actions]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Explore these optional code suggestions:

Category	Suggestion	Score
Possible issue	Add a runtime check to ensure map values are of the expected type before type assertion Ensure that the tykExt.Server.Authentication.SecuritySchemes map only contains integer values before attempting type assertion to avoid runtime panics. apidef/oas/oas_test.go [1333-1336] for k, v := range tykExt.Server.Authentication.SecuritySchemes { intVal, ok := v.(int) - assert.True(t, ok) + if !ok { + t.Fatalf("unexpected value type in SecuritySchemes for key %v: %T", k, v) + } tykExt.Server.Authentication.SecuritySchemes[k] = float64(intVal) } Suggestion importance[1-10]: 9 Why: The suggestion adds a runtime check to ensure that the map values are of the expected type before performing a type assertion. This prevents potential runtime panics and improves the robustness of the test. The improved code is accurate and directly addresses the issue in the existing code.	9

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
1 Security Hotspot

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud