[CSharp] Provide option for configurable access modifiers

[kbedel]

Description

I would like be to able to configure the access modifiers on all generated classes. In my case I am using the c# client, but this is may be applicable to many of the generators.

The reason is that I want to include the generated code into an existing project which exposes a public API. The generated code is completely hidden and should not be part of the exposed API. I believe this should just be an option of the codegen process like the packageName option, and not tied to the specification itself. It may be applicable even in use cases where the person consuming the API is not the author of the specification, but may still want to generate the client as internal

Swagger-codegen version

Tested with version 2.2.1. I've also confirmed in master that nothing has changed around this.

Related issues

This one is somewhat similar, but is tied to the specification and is a bit more broad: #1467

[wing328]

@kbedel Thanks for the feedback. Have you considered modifying the C# templates and apply the customized tempalates via the -t CLI option?

[kbedel]

Yes, that is what I plan to do in the meantime, but I thought I would submit because it would be nice not to have to maintain my own set of templates, and thought it would likely be of use to others as well. Would there be interest in a PR adding a C# config option for this?

[jimschubert]

@kbedel The only other access modifier that could work across all classes on the generated client is internal. private and protected wouldn't make sense as options because then even most classes within the generated output wouldn't be able to access each other.

Would a internalClassesOnly option work for you?

When you say you're exposing a "public API" and the generated classes shouldn't be part of that, are you using Swashbuckle or something to generate your Swagger Definition? If so, you can exclude these types via namespace in your ApiExplorer object prior to the generation of the swagger docs. I think this would be a much better approach in your situation, but I can also see the value in generating classes as internal.

[kbedel]

@jimschubert Yeah, internal is the only other one that makes sense here. That option sounds good.

By public API, I mean as part of an SDK 3rd party developers can use to customize the application. Some of the implementation of this public API calls out to the swagger web services, but other parts are just concerned with the application itself. All the generated types should be encapsulated and hidden from the 3rd party developers. So we need the objects to be generated and consumed in the implementation (and therefore in the Swagger Definition), but the types should not be public in our built assembly.

Our Swagger Definition is generated from a Scala Play Framework application using the https://github.com/iheartradio/play-swagger/ project.

[jimschubert]

@kbedel I opened #4560 to support internal access modifiers. I was wondering if you could evaluate it to make sure it fits your use case?

[kbedel]

@jimschubert Yes, this should be perfect for our use case. Thanks for adding it.