fix: negative and positive validation annotations uses relevant OAS 3.1 syntax ( #5170)

[Mattias-Sehlstedt]

Pull Request

Thank you for contributing to swagger-core!

Please fill out the following information to help us review your PR efficiently.

---

Description

Fixes so that a @Positive and @Negative utilizes the fact that exclusiveMinimum/exclusiveMaximum is numeric for OAS 3.1.

Fixes #5170

Type of Change

• 🐛 Bug fix
• ✨ New feature
• ♻️ Refactor (non-breaking change)
• 🧪 Tests
• 📝 Documentation
• 🧹 Chore (build or tooling)

Checklist

• I have added/updated tests as needed
• I have added/updated documentation where applicable
• The PR title is descriptive
• The code builds and passes tests locally
• I have linked related issues (if any)

Screenshots / Additional Context

[ewaostrowska]

Thank you @Mattias-Sehlstedt for your commit on this issue!
I have found 2 gaps that needed to be covered so that the edge cases are covered for OAS 3.1:

• a schema with minimum: 0 (inclusive) was not tightened to exclusiveMinimum: 0
• and an existing negative exclusiveMinimumValue (e.g. from a combined @DecimalMin("-5")) was left unchanged, meaning @positive had no effect on the generated schema
• @DecimalMin(inclusive=false) and @DecimalMax(inclusive=false) are also included )

I have added also tests to check the interactions between constraints.

[djankows]

io.swagger.v3.oas.models.SpecVersion.V31 could be imported

[tthornton3-chwy]

I can echo that this PR properly fixed the bug around both minimum and exclusiveMinimum being included the outputted spec that we were seeing on latest! Thank you for working on this!

[daniel-kmiecik]

@Mattias-Sehlstedt thanks again for your time and engagement! We really appropriate your work!

[Mattias-Sehlstedt]

Thanks @daniel-kmiecik 🙏

Now I only have a single fix left before I would consider swagger-core (a) fully functional and operational (battle station). On the current version I have a lot of Int.MAX and Int.MIN leaking in my specification due to composed constraint annotations.

I assume that few have been affected by this as of now, since most usage comes through springdoc and they are a bit behind with the versions. If my PR was to be reviewed then I could later make sure to bump springdoc all the way to latest and ensure that their next release will jump directly to that version, and that that will hopefully also make everyone be extremely happy with the current functionality.