P2 | Confidence: Medium

Speculative: The feature introduces a global flag that affects all operations, but there's no way to control response reuse on a per-operation basis. In complex APIs, some operations might benefit from response reuse while others should keep inline responses for clarity. The related_context shows diverse operation patterns that might have different response reuse requirements.

Code Suggestion:

// Consider operation-level override
type OperationContext struct {
    // ... existing fields ...
    ReuseResponses *bool // nil means use reflector setting
}

P1 | Confidence: High

The response name generation logic creates potential naming collisions. When different operations use the same response structure type, they'll generate identical names. However, when different status codes use different structures that happen to have the same type name, they'll also collide. This violates OpenAPI's requirement that component names be unique. The related_context shows multiple test files creating Reflector instances, and in real usage, different packages could have structs with identical names.

Code Suggestion:

// Include HTTP status in the name to ensure uniqueness across different status codes
if structType.Name() != "" {
    return structType.Name() + strconv.Itoa(httpStatus)
}

Evidence: method:generateResponseName

P1 | Confidence: High

The current implementation doesn't verify that existing responses with the same name are actually equivalent to the new response. If two different responses generate the same name (due to the naming collision issue), the second response will incorrectly reference the first response's definition. This could lead to incorrect API documentation where different response types are documented as being the same.

Code Suggestion:

// Add response equivalence check before reusing
if existing, exists := r.Spec.Components.Responses.MapOfResponseOrRefValues[name]; exists {
    // Compare key response properties before reusing
    if responsesAreEquivalent(existing, resp) {
        return name
    }
    // Generate unique name for different responses with same base name
    name = generateUniqueName(name, r.Spec.Components.Responses)
}

Evidence: method:collectResponse

P1 | Confidence: High

When ReuseResponses is enabled and a response is stored in components, the cu.Customize callback receives an empty ResponseOrRef with only a reference set. This breaks the customization capability because the callback can no longer modify the actual response content. The related_context shows extensive usage of operation customization in tests, indicating this is a critical feature.

Code Suggestion:

if refName != "" {
    ror = ResponseOrRef{}
    ror.SetReference("#/components/responses/" + refName)
    // Apply customization to the component response if it exists
    if compResp, exists := r.Spec.Components.Responses.MapOfResponseOrRefValues[refName]; exists {
        if cu.Customize != nil {
            cu.Customize(&compResp)
        }
    }
} else {
    ror = ResponseOrRef{Response: resp}
    if cu.Customize != nil {
        cu.Customize(&ror)
    }
}

Evidence: method:setupResponse

P2 | Confidence: Medium

Speculative: The tests verify that components are populated but don't validate the actual content or reference correctness. They don't test edge cases like naming collisions, different structures with same names, or the interaction with the Customize callback. More comprehensive validation would ensure the feature works correctly in complex scenarios.

Code Suggestion:

// Add test for naming collision scenario
func TestResponseReuse_NamingCollision(t *testing.T) {
    // Test that different structures with same type name don't collide
}

// Add test for customize callback with reused responses  
func TestResponseReuse_WithCustomize(t *testing.T) {
    // Verify customization works correctly with component references
}