Skip to content

Merge the latest specification files from JSON Schema Test Suite #693

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.

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

Closed
fdutton opened this issue Apr 6, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #701
Closed

Merge the latest specification files from JSON Schema Test Suite #693

fdutton opened this issue Apr 6, 2023 · 2 comments · Fixed by #701

Comments

@fdutton
Copy link
Contributor

fdutton commented Apr 6, 2023

It appears that the last time this project synchronized the JSON Schema Test Suite specification files happened ~3.5 years ago. This project disabled many of the specification checks due to issues in that version of the test suite; presumably because of issues in the specification (e.g., tests/draft2019-09/optional/content.json). These issues have been resolved and successfully pass testing but only after updating content.json with the newest version.

This change would be easier if #692 is accepted but could be done without it. It would just be more effort to understand what actually changed. For example, the test suite is missing tests/draft2019-09/optional/zeroTerminatedFloats.json. Is this because zeroTerminatedFloats.json is specific to this project or it once existed in the test suite but no longer does. To find the answer, one must examine the test suite's commit history.

@stevehu
Copy link
Contributor

stevehu commented Apr 7, 2023

With the changes in the test cases you have done, this move will allow us to see which validator has issues and get them fixed. There were three reasons that some of the test cases were commented out.

  1. specification issue
  2. validator is not implemented or is incomplete for the version
  3. part of the specification that is not used. i.e. #/tilda~0field, #/slash~1field, #/percent%25field don't work in reference #5

Let's implement all keywords from the specifications but need to prioritize the one users are concerned most. Thanks.

@fdutton
Copy link
Contributor Author

fdutton commented Apr 7, 2023

Agreed.

I am looking for a good candidate. Do you have any suggestions?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants