Skip to content

Attempt to justify and explain unevaluated keyword phrasing #1025

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 24, 2020
Merged

Attempt to justify and explain unevaluated keyword phrasing #1025

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
6ca91fa
Attempt to justify and explain unevaluated keyword phrasing
Relequestual Nov 19, 2020
d5b7385
Update jsonschema-core.xml
Relequestual Nov 22, 2020
4c4efc6
/wheeles/wheels/
Relequestual Nov 22, 2020
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 8 additions & 0 deletions jsonschema-core.xml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2576,6 +2576,14 @@
to contribute to whether or not the item or property has been evaluated.
Only successful evaluations are considered.
</t>
<t>
If an item in an array or an object property is "successfully evaluated", it
is logically considered to be valid in terms of the representation of the
object or array that's expected. For example if a subschema represents a car,
which requires between 2-4 wheels, and the value of "wheels" is 6, the instance
object is not "evaluated" to be a car, and the "wheels" property is considered
"unevaluated (successfully as a known thing)", and does not retain any annotations.
</t>
<t>
Recall that adjacent keywords are keywords within the same schema object,
and that the dynamic-scope subschemas include reference targets as well as
Expand Down