HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
OAI
OpenAPI-Specification
Markdown2014–2026
OAI / OpenAPI-Specification

OpenAPI-Specification

The OpenAPI Specification Repository

35Distinct people
40Mentions
1Explicit recommenders
31.3KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

The OpenAPI Specification Repository

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

Yep. OpenAPI spec is not rich enough to represent relations like this so its rubbish for FE dev to use to generate models/api client. In general, the tooling/spec has thousands…

adamscybot used a recommendation phrase. One indexed comment matches. This is a phrase match, not a verdict.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 7:56:55 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year40 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2014-03-21 01:41:57 UTC to 2026-07-05 14:59:36 UTC.

02462014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 1 submissions, 3 comments20142015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 5 mentions; 1 submissions, 4 comments2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 5 mentions; 0 submissions, 5 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 6 mentions; 2 submissions, 4 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 1 submissions, 2 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 6 mentions; 2 submissions, 4 comments20202021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 5 mentions; 1 submissions, 4 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20142014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC413
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC514
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC505
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC624
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC312
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC624
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC514
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC110
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC110

What Hacker News says

2 sources
I fail to see how running something like protoc before running or compiling code is a show stopper. There are even npm packages that will install protoc for you [1]. That means you can use it in a custom npm build script action, or invoke it before staring the dev server? Put in a git pre-commit to run it to assert there are no changes? Run via a file-watcher? IMO writing a schema in something like JSON for OpenAPI is way more verbose and time consuming than writing a proto file and a script or Makefile to invoke protoc. There also is the mismatch in capabilities. The JS-adjacent schema standards mostly do not directly support native types like uint64, let alone directly specify how to encode numbers like fixed64. I mean, look... the work around in JavaScript still is use "string" [2]. On the other hand, there is a standard in OpenAPI for
Read the rest
validating values. But that doesn't make sense in the Protobuf world since usually the API is expected to be forward and backward compatible, within reason, so something like a min and max value needs to be done at runtime, and not fixed within the schema. And don't get me started on trying to define cross-field validation in a declarative schema. It is easier to just write the code. :-) So, IMO, no, a single standard won't happen in the industry. The many dimensions like logical vs physical models, validation, or error handling that make it impossible. [1] https://www.npmjs.com/package/@protobuf-ts/protoc [2] https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/issues/2617#iss...
In The reason to use Protobuf is not performance
I saw your sibling comment about "keeping it simple," however that is a bit counter to "generates OpenAPI specifications" since those for sure are not limited to just application/json request/response bodies I wanted to draw your attention to "normal" POST application/x-www-form-urlencoded <https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/3.1.0/vers...> and its multipart/form-data friend <https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/3.1.0/vers...> The latter is likely problematic, but the former is in wide use still, including, strangely enough, the AWS API, although some of their newer services do have an application/json protocol I know that's a lot of words, but the tl;dr would be that if you want your extension to be application/json only, then changing the description to say "OpenAPI specifications for application/json handshak
Read the rest
es" would help the consumer be on the same page with your goals
In Show HN: OpenAPI DevTools – Chrome extension that generates an API spec

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.