I assume that this new option will be available from the maven plugin as well.

If so, LGTM

This PR resolves #7638

I don’t think this should be a global option. Most generators don’t care about it

I even don’t think this should be an option at all. Boolean wrapper should be called with get, not is. Always.

@cbornet @dkellenb To be honest, I think this is the same kind of debate that we could have for indentation style, tabs vs space, etc...
I think the more we provide ways for the user to customize the output of swagger-codegen, the better it is.

I agree with you that most generators don't care because they don't have the concept of getter/setter (think of typescript) or it's another concept completely (C# with properties) Maybe this should be implemented on a selected few generators (java mostly I think)? It could be in the AbstractJavaCodegen file?

As for always using "get" like @cbornet said, many people would disagree with him. Using "is" in the getter name help to see if the name of the variable is ok: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5322648/for-a-boolean-field-what-is-the-naming-convention-for-its-getter-setter

I have projects who use both.

So maybe we should move this to the AbstractJavaCodegen as an option instead of a general option?

I agree with @JFCote that it is better to have the getter naming customizable.
It is even more important since some property mappers do not map Boolean isMyVariable() but only boolean isMyVariable() or Boolean getMyVariable(), see e.g. in the Spring BeanWrapper: https://jira.spring.io/browse/SPR-9482
However, I would suggest to leave it in the default codegen, and not move it to the abstract java codegen, since the property-mapping issue could possibly also exist in other languages.

I think the more we provide ways for the user to customize the output of swagger-codegen, the better it is.

Sorry but I disagree. The more options there are, the harder it is to maintain, refactor, evolve, etc... I think we already have too many options on the Java gen which has become very messy (we should do something about that at some point btw).

As for always using "get" like @cbornet said, many people would disagree with him. Using "is" in the getter name help to see if the name of the variable is ok: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5322648/for-a-boolean-field-what-is-the-naming-convention-for-its-getter-setter

This SOF link is about the boolean primitive, not the Boolean wrapper type. While it's OK to use the is getter for boolean, it's not allowed for the Boolean wrapper in the JavaBeans spec as @macjohnny pointed out.

Was this never merged?