Skip to content

Add explicit json types #146#166

Merged
jh-RLI merged 6 commits intodevelopfrom
feature-146-json-format
Oct 16, 2024
Merged

Add explicit json types #146#166
jh-RLI merged 6 commits intodevelopfrom
feature-146-json-format

Conversation

@Ludee
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@Ludee Ludee commented Oct 15, 2024

Summary of the discussion

The JSON schema spec allows some build in additional types.
Used options are:

  • "date": 2018-11-13
  • "date-time": 2018-11-13T20:20:39+00:00
  • "uri": A universal resource identifier (URI), according to RFC3986.

Type of change (CHANGELOG.md)

Added

  • Add explicit json types (#166)

Workflow checklist

Automation

Closes #146

PR-Assignee

Reviewer

  • 🐙 Follow the Reviewer Guidelines
  • 🐙 Provided feedback and show sufficient appreciation for the work done

@Ludee Ludee added part: documentation 📖 Improvements or additions to documentation type: enhancement ⚙️ Improvement of an existing feature labels Oct 15, 2024
@Ludee Ludee requested a review from jh-RLI October 15, 2024 15:54
@Ludee Ludee self-assigned this Oct 15, 2024
@Ludee Ludee marked this pull request as ready for review October 15, 2024 15:56
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@jh-RLI jh-RLI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's good. I think it's worth taking a second look. We should probably also add some regex for validation. Once we have implemented this in the Oemetabuilder, we can use the schema to validate the form inputs and provide feedback to the user about exactly which fields have not been filled in correctly. The format (type) is good regex, for example, would ensure that users use the format “topic.table_name” for the field “tables name” instead of “table name”.

However, this can happen in another PR and would not be a breaking change

@jh-RLI jh-RLI merged commit ff30176 into develop Oct 16, 2024
@jh-RLI jh-RLI deleted the feature-146-json-format branch October 16, 2024 08:29
@Ludee
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Ludee commented Oct 16, 2024

Thanks for the detailed review.

I agree that there can be more "pattern" fields in the schema.
This issue was only about the "types".

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

part: documentation 📖 Improvements or additions to documentation type: enhancement ⚙️ Improvement of an existing feature

Projects

Status: Done

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Use more explicit types in the json schema instead of just "string".

2 participants