OpenAPI codegen tools promise to automate SDK creation, but they regularly fail when confronted with real-world API complexity. Even well-crafted specs following best practices can trigger generator crashes, produce broken code, or worse, generate silently incorrect SDKs that fail in production.
This guide examines the specific schema patterns that break standard generators, explains why these failures occur at scale, and shows you practical strategies for building robust, production-ready SDKs when basic codegen tools fall short.
OpenAPI codegen tools are powerful but often break down when faced with real-world API complexity, even when you carefully create OpenAPI specs following best practices. Common failures include generation crashes, unusable code, and silent production bugs caused by tricky schema patterns like recursion and unions. This guide breaks down why these tools fail, what to do when they do, and how a modern generation platform can help you build robust, production-ready SDKs without the manual workarounds.
How do OpenAPI codegen tools fail?
OpenAPI codegen tools typically fail in three ways. The generation process can crash entirely, the tool can produce unusable code that will not compile, or it can generate code with silent type mismatches that only cause errors at runtime. These failures often surface late in the development cycle, making them difficult and costly to debug.
The most obvious failure is a generator crash. You might see a stack overflow or an out-of-memory error, especially with large or complex specs. The process halts, leaving you with nothing but a cryptic error log.
Note: You may encounter a similar crash with any Node-based OpenAPI generator when your spec exceeds default memory limits.
More common is when the generator succeeds but produces broken code. The output might have syntax errors, missing imports, or incorrect method signatures, leading to compile-time errors. This forces you to either manually fix the generated code or dive into the generator's templates, both of which are frustrating dead ends.
The most dangerous failure, however, is silent. The generator misinterprets a part of your schema, producing code that compiles perfectly but is fundamentally wrong. For example, it might flatten a complex union type into a generic object, stripping away all type safety and setting you up for unexpected TypeError exceptions in production.
Which schema patterns break generators?
While your OpenAPI spec might be perfectly valid, certain common patterns are notorious for confusing standard codegen tools. These are not obscure edge cases; they represent real-world API designs that are essential for building flexible and powerful services.
Recursive schemas and circular references
Recursive schemas are types that refer to themselves, which is common in data structures like organizational charts or nested comments. For example, a User object might have a manager property who is also a User.
This pattern often sends basic generators into an infinite loop, causing a stack overflow crash during code generation. A more robust generator detects this recursion and uses language-specific features, like forward references or interfaces, to model the relationship correctly and safely.
Union types and anyOf patterns
Union types, defined with oneOf or anyOf, allow a property to be one of several different shapes. A classic example is a webhook payload, where the event object can vary depending on the event type.
Many generators struggle here. They might ignore the discriminator that tells you which shape to expect, or simply collapse the union into a weak type like any, challenges explored in what we learned converting complex OpenAPI specs to MCP servers. This defeats the purpose of a typed SDK, forcing developers to write manual type guards and inspection logic.
Modern generation platforms can handle this gracefully. They can even transform the schema to accommodate clients with different capabilities, for instance, by creating distinct create_card_payment and create_bank_payment tools if the underlying AI model cannot handle a union type.
Deeply nested objects
Even without recursion, schemas with many levels of nested objects can cause problems. While valid, they can lead to extremely large and unwieldy generated model files.
This bloat slows down IDEs, making features like autocompletion lag, and increases compile times. A better generator will provide diagnostics that suggest creating named models for these nested objects, which results in cleaner, more modular, and more performant code.
What are the scale limits in large OpenAPI specs?
Scale is another major challenge. Many open-source generators begin to struggle or fail once an OpenAPI spec grows beyond 300-500 endpoints, often hitting memory or processing time limits.
This problem extends beyond just generating the SDK. If you are also generating documentation examples or tools for an AI agent, the full schema of a large API can easily exceed an LLM's context window, a challenge you'll also face when you generate an MCP server from an OpenAPI spec for AI applications. This results in incomplete or nonsensical outputs.
A modern generation platform addresses this with strategies built for scale. For AI use cases, this might involve creating "dynamic tools" that allow an LLM to discover endpoints at runtime rather than loading the entire API schema into its limited context. This approach keeps the initial context small while still providing access to the full breadth of the API.
Why do generated SDKs fail in production?
Getting your generated code to compile is only the first step. A standard generator often produces a bare-bones wrapper that lacks the essential features required for a reliable production environment, reinforcing why your API isn't finished until the SDK ships with proper production capabilities. This leaves your users to build the same boilerplate logic over and over again.
Feature | Basic Generator Output | Production-Ready SDK |
|---|---|---|
Authentication | Requires manual header injection. | Handles various auth schemes and token refresh automatically. |
Retries | No retry logic. Fails on first error. | Automatically retries on transient network errors and 429/5xx codes with exponential backoff. |
Pagination | Returns raw API response. Requires manual cursor/offset handling. | Provides auto-iterators to loop through pages seamlessly. |
Timeouts | No timeouts configured. Can hang indefinitely. | Configurable connection and request timeouts to prevent stalled requests. |
Idempotency | No support. Retries can cause duplicate operations. | Automatically sends idempotency keys on non-GET requests to ensure safety. |
A great SDK handles these production concerns out of the box and makes it easy to integrate SDK snippets with your API docs, providing developers with copy-ready examples. By automating this boilerplate, you save your users countless hours of work and provide a much more resilient and professional developer experience.
What to do when standard generators fail
When you hit a wall with a standard generator, you are not out of options. You can approach the problem with a few different strategies, each offering more leverage than the last.
Spec preprocessing
The first step is to try and fix your OpenAPI spec before feeding it to the generator. This involves running linters and custom scripts to simplify complex schemas, resolve references, or bundle multiple files into one. This approach treats the symptoms but not the cause.
A better approach is to use a tool that provides clear diagnostics on your spec, guiding you to fix the root issues. Fixing the spec is always the preferred solution, as it benefits all consumers of your API, not just the SDK.
Code patches
When you cannot change the spec, you might resort to patching the generator's output. This could mean forking and editing the generator's templates or running sed scripts on the generated code.
This path is filled with peril. It creates a brittle, custom pipeline that is a nightmare to maintain. Every time you update the generator or your spec, your patches are likely to break, locking you into a cycle of constant fixes.
A more sustainable approach involves a system that can preserve your manual edits through a semantic merge. This allows you to add custom code that persists through regenerated code, adding custom logic or fixes on top of the generated output without fighting the generator at every turn.
Intelligent schema transforms
The most powerful solution is a generator that is intelligent enough to handle complex specs without needing manual intervention. Instead of requiring you to change the spec or patch the output, it transforms the schema internally to produce correct and idiomatic code.
For example, it can automatically apply workarounds for client-specific limitations, like inlining references for a tool that does not support them. This approach gives you the best of both worlds: a clean, canonical OpenAPI spec and a robust, tailored SDK.
Frequently asked questions about OpenAPI codegen failures
How can I predict if my spec will break a generator?
Look for common stress points in your spec. High endpoint counts, recursive schemas, heavy use of anyOf/oneOf, and deeply nested anonymous objects are all red flags for standard generators.
Should I mix multiple generators to cover edge cases?
This is generally not recommended. You will end up with a complex and brittle pipeline that is difficult to maintain, with potential versioning and dependency conflicts between the different toolchains.
When is it worth building my own generator?
Building your own generator is a massive undertaking. Only consider it if you have a truly unique use case, like a proprietary language target, and have the engineering resources to dedicate to its long-term maintenance.
How do I debug generated code that fails only for users?
The best way is to prevent these bugs from reaching users in the first place. Implement contract testing in your CI/CD pipeline to validate the SDK against your live API and use a generator that provides rich diagnostics to catch issues early.
Does using a managed generation platform cause vendor lock-in?
No, not if the platform is built on open principles. A modern, spec-first platform ensures you always own your code by generating it into your own repositories and offering an open customization loop to preserve any manual edits you make.
Ready to ship SDKs that just work? Get started for free.