You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
⬆ This is interesting information but it is NOT an SEO-ready title. I suggest "# Generate Typescript clients from OpenAPI specification"
From the docs:
Generate client with appropriate type-signatures
This can definitely be improved. I suggest "Instantly generate TypeScript clients from your OpenAPI specification"
From the github description:
orval is able to generate client with appropriate type-signatures (TypeScript) from any valid OpenAPI v3 or Swagger v2 specification, either in yaml or json formats. 🍺
I suggest the clearer "orval generates type-safe JS clients (TypeScript) from any valid OpenAPI v3 or Swagger v2 specification, either in yaml or json formats. 🍺"
I know, I repeat a lot "typescript" instead of "type-safe" or "type-signature" but that's not what users are searching for.
What do you think about that? I'll be happy to create an MR if you agree with this. Don't hesitate to challenge the wordings I propose
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Orval doesn't appear in the search that is looking for "OpenAPI to Typescript" tools
We just need to change some titles in the readme in the docs.
From the README:
⬆ This is interesting information but it is NOT an SEO-ready title. I suggest "# Generate Typescript clients from OpenAPI specification"
From the docs:
This can definitely be improved. I suggest "Instantly generate TypeScript clients from your OpenAPI specification"
From the github description:
I suggest the clearer "orval generates type-safe JS clients (TypeScript) from any valid OpenAPI v3 or Swagger v2 specification, either in yaml or json formats. 🍺"
I know, I repeat a lot "typescript" instead of "type-safe" or "type-signature" but that's not what users are searching for.
What do you think about that? I'll be happy to create an MR if you agree with this. Don't hesitate to challenge the wordings I propose
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: