added operationId to metadata of request specs

[jamerine]

Added a change to allow users to add operationId to the metadata of request specs. There have been requests to make the OpenAPI spec require operationId for many reasons. Here is an example: OAI/OpenAPI-Specification#1907.

If a user adds operation-id to the metadata of a request spec, it will be added to the path section of the schema.

First time contributor and I struggled to figure out where to add a test for this feature. Let me know if there is a place where you would like to see a spec for this.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #131 (42d67cc) into master (6a1fbf4) will increase coverage by 0.26%.
Report is 6 commits behind head on master.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #131      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.65%   96.91%   +0.26%     
==========================================
  Files          14       14              
  Lines         419      422       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits          405      409       +4     
+ Misses         14       13       -1     

Files	Coverage Δ
lib/rspec/openapi/record.rb	100.00% <ø> (ø)
lib/rspec/openapi/record_builder.rb	100.00% <100.00%> (+1.53%)	⬆️
lib/rspec/openapi/schema_builder.rb	97.87% <ø> (ø)

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[jamerine]

@exoego - What are your thoughts on this feature to enable operationId to be passed in as metadata options on a spec?

[exoego]

Supporting operation-id itself sounds legit to me.
It is unclear to me that path_server_records or other props are added.

[jamerine]

Supporting operation-id itself sounds legit to me. It is unclear to me that path_server_records or other props are added.

@exoego - Sorry for the confusion here, I was testing out another proposed feature to the gem and committed my change to this PR. I am going to revert my last commit here so that this PR is strictly for the operation-id feature. Then I'll submit another PR for the server record changes.

[jamerine]

@exoego - Ok, this PR for adding operation-id is good to review again.

[exoego]

@jamerine Could you update any single test to use :operation_id so we can ensure OpenAPI file generated by tests have operationId.

[jamerine]

@exoego - We added :operation_id to a test and updated the expected.yaml to have the operationId as well. Let me know if there are any other changes you would like us to make.

[jamerine]

@exoego - If we can get this :operation_id PR merged in, I will open up another PR for another proposed new feature.

[exoego]

Sorry for the late response.
Thanks.