Optional and Object for InterTypes

[olynch]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (7e3e833) 90.64% compared to head (261663d) 90.75%.

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/intertypes/json.jl	91.30%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #96      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.64%   90.75%   +0.11%     
==========================================
  Files          22       22              
  Lines        2074     2110      +36     
==========================================
+ Hits         1880     1915      +35     
- Misses        194      195       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[fivegrant]

@olynch I'm still double checking a few things but I was wondering if you've noticed the JSON Schema validating on any JSON object. Would it break InterTypes to have the user specify which types get definitions? I think that might help a bit as to not stuff a bunch of definitions at the top level

[jpfairbanks]

The schema of a type can be a list including the string null? Is this a JSONSchema idiom?

[olynch]

I think so? This is what showed up on the jsonschema website when I poked around for it, but I'm no jsonschema expert.

[jpfairbanks]

@fivegrant can probably confirm that it is what he would expect for a nullable field.

[olynch]

@olynch I'm still double checking a few things but I was wondering if you've noticed the JSON Schema validating on any JSON object. Would it break InterTypes to have the user specify which types get definitions? I think that might help a bit as to not stuff a bunch of definitions at the top level

I'm not really sure what you mean by this with regard to "which types get definitions"?

[fivegrant]

@olynch If you look at the Petrinet Schema, you'll notice it only validates on object. InterTypes, however, produces a bunch of $defs:

"$defs": {
    "Parameter": {
      "type": "object",
      "properties": {
        "type": {
          "type": "string",
          "$comment": "Str"
        },
        "value": {
          "type": "number",
          "$comment": "F64"
        }
      },
      "required": [
        "type",
        "value"
      ]
    },
    "Condition": {
      "type": "object",
      "properties": {
        "type": {
          "type": "string",
          "$comment": "Str"
        },
        "value": {
          "type": "number",
          "$comment": "F64"
        },
        "domain_mesh": {
          "type": "string",
    ....
    "Thing": {
      "type": "object",
      "properties": {
        "a": {"type": "Condition"}, "b":{"type":"Parameter"}}
      }
    }

When validating against this schema with a bunch of $defs, many tools don't let you specify a particular one and see if a given JSON matches just one of the entries. For example, I just have to match one of the above to pass

[olynch]

@olynch If you look at the Petrinet Schema, you'll notice it only validates on object. InterTypes, however, produces a bunch of $defs:

"$defs": {
    "Parameter": {
      "type": "object",
      "properties": {
        "type": {
          "type": "string",
          "$comment": "Str"
        },
        "value": {
          "type": "number",
          "$comment": "F64"
        }
      },
      "required": [
        "type",
        "value"
      ]
    },
    "Condition": {
      "type": "object",
      "properties": {
        "type": {
          "type": "string",
          "$comment": "Str"
        },
        "value": {
          "type": "number",
          "$comment": "F64"
        },
        "domain_mesh": {
          "type": "string",
    ....
    "Thing": {
      "type": "object",
      "properties": {
        "a": {"type": "Condition"}, "b":{"type":"Parameter"}}
      }
    }

When validating against this schema with a bunch of $defs, many tools don't let you specify a particular one and see if a given JSON matches just one of the entries. For example, I just have to match one of the above to pass

This is a valid point, but not really relevant to this PR. Can you open an issue for it?

But also, I would argue that this is a better way of doing it, because it maps closer to how one declares types in the programming languages that use intertypes.

[fivegrant]

@olynch I brought the $defs issue because I think adding objects made the JSON Schema noticeably more permissive but it's been a minute since I've validated previously

Anyway, I waited to review this PR until I made sure everything worked in the MR one and it does so LGTM!

[fivegrant]

small note: I added InterTypes so they match the examples exactly. Changes that require modifying the examples should be done in a different PR. ignore this. commented on wrong pr