Update meta schema files in project #641
Conversation
…al meta schema file, since it was copied to project
…roperties.id.format and properties.$schema.format was dropped to stay in sync with official meta schema, patch kept
…ted as mistakes: changed to become in sync with official draft-03
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #641 +/- ##
======================================
Coverage 95.5% 95.5%
======================================
Files 18 18
Lines 2471 2471
Branches 309 309
======================================
Hits 2360 2360
Misses 95 95
Partials 16 16 |
|
Thanks. Some of this is reasonable I suppose to make merging any future changes to the metaschemas easier to merge in, but is there any other reason you had for this change? Also there's at least one error here, not sure why you dropped the propertyNames change but that was not dropped upstream, on the contrary, we probably just haven't added it yet upstream |
|
On the first look, i thought your files where just outdated and wanted to push the most recent version. |
|
On draft-6: |
|
Again though, that change is incorrect. The upstream schemas are missing it, it should not be removed, it should be upstreamed. |
…erties.propertyNames
|
I got your comment wrong and thought that you accidentally reversed properties.propertyNames & properties.patternProperties.propertyNames. Now your patch No.2 is re-applied to draft-6. Draft-3, draft-4 and draft-7 do have the properties.patternProperties element, but your patch was missing in the old project files - i guess by intention. If not, ping me, and i will re-apply the patch No.2 to these files too. I can not find your PR to upstream. If it is missing: now would be a good point in time to create that PR - i think (you can explain, better then me, why patch No.1 and No.2, is necessary) |
|
Great, thanks, so what changes remain now? Is it just essentially re-ordering all the keys, and then some style differences in how to denote objects (and some trailing whitespace), or are there other functional differences you noticed? |
|
see a1fa9cf
|
|
OK, thanks -- I'm still a bit uncomfortable merging this given that we have not yet hit json-schema-org/JSON-Schema-Test-Suite#244 -- I'm going to have to review it carefully, which may take a bit longer. |
|
I my opinion you could run:
That should be good enough and you should see unintended side effects. In addition you could leave a comment in json-schema-org/JSON-Schema-Test-Suite#244 (or in a repo-specific issue) to run the test on latest release (when improved test suite is available) and in case of test result errors to re-scan unmerged and merge version again, to check if it was introduced by the merge (revert changed file if required). Waiting for a "perfect future" is a way to let your backlog grow more fast then it should. |
|
The test suite does not cover any of this behavior.
…On Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 21:31 daniela-waranie ***@***.***> wrote:
I my opinion you could run:
1. test suite against current version
2. test suite against PR version
3. merge if both tests results are equal
That should be good enough and you should see unintended side effects.
As this represents "merged at the best current knowledge".
In addition you could leave a comment in
json-schema-org/JSON-Schema-Test-Suite#244
<json-schema-org/JSON-Schema-Test-Suite#244>(or
in a repo-specific issue) to run the test on latest release and in case of
test result errors to re-scan unmerged and merge version again, to check if
it was introduced by the merge (revert changed file if required).
Waiting for a "perfect future" is a way to let your backlog grow more fast
then it should.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#641>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACQQXQMFYYGRWGEXBJQABTQZZ4LRANCNFSM4JXOHZNA>
.
|
|
I did NOT spot a problem in the last 3 month. LGTM. Ready to merge. Could be released as 3.2.1-RC1 to let others send feedback, if you still worry about your test coverage. |
Simplifies diffing with it. Refs: #641
Simplifies diffing with it. Refs: #641
19947eaa1 test: unevaluatedProperties not affected by propertyNames 829270631 Check that large integers are multiples of small multipleOf b59543f6e Merge pull request #647 from santhosh-tekuri/ref-start-slash 6e5d45d71 Merge pull request #646 from santhosh-tekuri/vocab-optional 0311dfda0 Merge pull request #651 from santhosh-tekuri/dynamicref-without-anchor 4503eeaf4 test: A $dynamicRef without anchor in fragment behaves identical to $ref 39af4c1ba test: $ref with absolute-path-reference 880c9933b test/vocabulary: ignore unrecognized optional vocabulary fd80307ff Merge pull request #642 from santhosh-tekuri/time-2digit a76ae650d Merge pull request #645 from json-schema-org/gregsdennis/add-vocab-tests-link 0e2b4eefd Merge pull request #643 from 0xSudarshan/main 2b78ccfc4 slight tweaking to wording 8716c4054 add link for vocab test suite to readme c49ba5445 Fix an incorrect $schema identifier. f0e5ce71e Added test for schema-items alongside "ignored" additionalItems 76dae88ab Merge pull request #640 from santhosh-tekuri/refRemote-anchor cb82e237c Merge pull request #641 from json-schema-org/gregsdennis/unevaluated-not-draft-next e4afd233a test/format: hour, min, sec must be two digits 7efd51313 fix unevaluatedProperties/not tests for draft-next e39c6ea6a test/refRemote: anchor within remote ref bf51b32fb Merge pull request #639 from json-schema-org/additionalItems-unevaluatedItems 52160b368 Add a test for 2019's interaction between additional/unevaluatedItems 69a09a339 Fixed tests for annotation collection inside not. e4e1a220b Draft7 if/then/else ref tests need to be wrapped in an allOf. f5bd2f6c3 Merge pull request #632 from json-schema-org/ether/annotations-inside-not 626b433e5 test that annations are collected inside a "not" git-subtree-dir: json git-subtree-split: 19947eaa1289168a49edd21bb7a8aa2098069ae0
Official meta schema files has been changed since they got committed to the project.
This PR is to bring them in sync with official meta schema files. This PR enables us to do easy diffs in the future.
Official:
http://json-schema.org/draft-03/schema#
http://json-schema.org/draft-04/schema#
http://json-schema.org/draft-06/schema#
http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#
Good news is: draft-7 and draft-6 are pretty close to official files.
Files in ./jsonschema/schema/ has been reviewed:
a) all elements are re-sorted to be in sync with element ordering of official schema files (to enable easy PR review)
b) formatting is now in sync with official schema
c) git commit history is inspected to find intended changed
d) patches of the jsonschema project are kept intact
e) rest is updated to become in sync with official meta schema files
For easyer PR review i created separate commits on each step - please review this PR commit-by-commit.
Please execute your test before merge to master to ensure that everything works as expected. You may want to check if your "fail rate" (https://github.com/ebdrup/json-schema-benchmark/blob/master/reports/jsonschema.md) has changed.
If this PR undo an intended patch (now stated in the commit history), let me know, i will re-apply it / update the PR.
BTW: i have to deal with draft-03 and draft-04 JSON instances in a project - that is the reason why i put efforts in these old meta schema files.