Fix #184 abao should understand security schemes

[bpytlik]

This fixes issue #184. Please let me know if you have any issues with it or any additional testing information you'd like to have.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.9%) to 89.474% when pulling 841c2de on bpytlik:security-v0.4-pr into a4ac7ee on cybertk:master.

[galkin]

This pull need improve.

1. We need api for hooks something like

test.isSecuredBy('securitySchema') => boolean
test.isTraitOfSecuritySchema('securitySchema') => boolean

2. Please add examples for hooks
3. We need change logic for option headers

[plroebuck]

Agree with Nikita on his points. Additionally, how do we prove this works in the real world?

[bpytlik]

Seems like this is more controversial than I expected it would be. The PR satisfies my company's needs. Unfortunately, this is a side project for me, and one I can't really justify spending much more time on. Right now, when I see comments like "how do we prove this works in the real world" I'm inclined to think that adjusting this PR to the feedback will take more time than I can allocate to it. At this point, I'm inclined to close the PR. If someone thinks I'm misunderstanding what they're saying, please let me know.

[plroebuck]

Sorry. Thought it was a valid question. If we add it, we should be able to prove it works, no?

[bpytlik]

There are test(s?) included with the pull request which show that we generate tests for the appropriate endpoints. To me, that's the proof that it works. I'm not sure what you mean by "works in the real world".