refactor: change swagger operationId output

[compojoom]

Summary

I'm using RTK code generation and the generated code had very ugly names. Here is an example:

I'm getting a lot of java vibes here :) Those method names are auto-generated based on the operationId.

I think that chances of collision are small if we remove the controller from the operationId.
It seems that you guys follow the convension:
AccountsController

• createAccount
• getAccount..
• upsertAccount
• deleteAccount

so despite the fact that I would remove accountsController of the name I won't have a similar operationId elsewhere as you are adding the controler name in the function

With this approach we end up with code like this:

WDYT?

@iamacook is this change going to be problematic for your client-gateway-typescript-sdk?

[hectorgomezv]

For reference, this is the complete list of operationId I get with this approach on the current codebase:

"operationId": "GetAbout",
"operationId": "v1AddConfirmation",
"operationId": "v1CheckEligibility",
"operationId": "v1CreateMessage",
"operationId": "v1CreateSubmission",
"operationId": "v1DeleteDelegate",
"operationId": "v1DeleteSafeDelegate",
"operationId": "v1DeleteTransaction",
"operationId": "v1GetAboutChain",
"operationId": "v1GetAllSafesByOwner",
"operationId": "v1GetBackbone",
"operationId": "v1GetBalances",
"operationId": "v1GetCampaignActivities",
"operationId": "v1GetCampaignById",
"operationId": "v1GetCampaignLeaderboard",
"operationId": "v1GetCampaignRank",
"operationId": "v1GetCampaigns",
"operationId": "v1GetChain",
"operationId": "v1GetChains",
"operationId": "v1GetContract",
"operationId": "v1GetCreationTransaction",
"operationId": "v1GetDataDecoded",
"operationId": "v1GetDelegates",
"operationId": "v1GetIncomingTransfers",
"operationId": "v1GetIndexingStatus",
"operationId": "v1GetLeaderboard",
"operationId": "v1GetLockingHistory",
"operationId": "v1GetLockingRank",
"operationId": "v1GetMasterCopies",
"operationId": "v1GetMessageByHash",
"operationId": "v1GetMessagesBySafe",
"operationId": "v1GetModuleTransactions",
"operationId": "v1GetMultisigTransactions",
"operationId": "v1GetNonces",
"operationId": "v1GetRelaysRemaining",
"operationId": "v1GetSafe",
"operationId": "v1GetSafeApps",
"operationId": "v1GetSafeOverview",
"operationId": "v1GetSafesByOwner",
"operationId": "v1GetSubmission",
"operationId": "v1GetSupportedFiatCodes",
"operationId": "v1GetTransactionById",
"operationId": "v1GetTransactionConfirmationView",
"operationId": "v1GetTransactionQueue",
"operationId": "v1GetTransactionsHistory",
"operationId": "v1PostDelegate",
"operationId": "v1PreviewTransaction",
"operationId": "v1ProposeTransaction",
"operationId": "v1RegisterDevice",
"operationId": "v1Relay",
"operationId": "v1UnregisterDevice",
"operationId": "v1UnregisterSafe",
"operationId": "v1UpdateMessageSignature",
"operationId": "v2GetCollectibles",
"operationId": "v2GetEstimation",

It looks good to me, but we would need to be cautious as we can't reuse method names through controllers, as the controller name would not be part of the operationId anymore @iamacook @PooyaRaki 🙂