fix(goctl/swagger): ignore '-' tags in parameters and properties

[TanishValesha]

Fixes #5427

Summary

• Fix swagger generation to treat "-" tag names as ignored fields instead of emitting parameters/properties named "-".
• Prevent invalid/duplicate OpenAPI parameter entries such as repeated (in=query, name="-") caused by multiple form:"-" fields.
• Add regression tests covering form:"-" in parameters and json:"-" in schema properties.

What changed

• Updated tools/goctl/api/swagger/parameter.go
  • Added ignore handling for header, path, form, and json tags when tag name is "-".
• Updated tools/goctl/api/swagger/properties.go
  • Skip schema property generation for json:"-".
• Added tests:
  • TestParametersFromType_IgnoreDashTagName in tools/goctl/api/swagger/parameter_test.go
  • TestPropertiesFromType_IgnoresJsonDashTag in tools/goctl/api/swagger/swagger_test.go

[kevwan]

Review

Good fix for a swagger generation correctness issue (fixes #5427).

Problem: Fields with json:"-", form:"-", etc. are conventionally ignored by Go's encoding packages. However, goctl's swagger generator was emitting them as parameters/properties named "-", which is invalid per OpenAPI spec.

Changes:

• parameter.go: Skips header, path, form, json tags when the tag name is "-"
• properties.go: Skips schema property generation for json:"-"
• Tests added for both cases

Suggestions:

1. Are query:"-" tags also ignored? The current fix covers form but not query explicitly — check if there's a separate query tag handling path that also needs this.
2. The change is minimal and targeted. ✅

Code quality: Straightforward conditional checks matching Go's encoding/json convention. The tests cover the primary scenarios.

LGTM — clean fix for a well-defined spec violation.

[TanishValesha]

@kevwan Thanks for the review and sorry for this late reply!
I checked the swagger parameter flow: there isn’t a separate 'query' tag path here. GET query parameters are generated from form tags, so form:"-" is the relevant ignore case for query params in this codebase. The current fix already covers the actual emission path, so there’s no additional query:"-" handling needed.

[TanishValesha]

@kevwan lmk, if there is any problem with merging this PR ?