docs: make usage of Schema Object consistent #143
Conversation
char0n
requested review from
KhudaDad414,
lbroudoux,
dalelane,
GeraldLoeffler,
derberg,
fmvilas and
asyncapi-bot-eve
as code owners
Co-authored-by: Fran Méndez <fmvilas@gmail.com>
|
@lbroudoux @GeraldLoeffler @derberg @KhudaDad414 would you be able to look at this PR please? THanks! |
|
@KhudaDad414 @lbroudoux @GeraldLoeffler pinging again on this one. |
…bindings into char0n/schema-object-consistency
|
PR updated with changes from |
char0n
dismissed stale reviews from GeraldLoeffler, KhudaDad414, and lbroudoux
via
7785df5
|
as multiple bindings were modified we need below folks to approve again: |
|
Haha this PR proved to be pretty difficult to merge ;] |
|
@smoya can you folks have a look 🙏🏼 |
|
3 more needed ;] |
|
@char0n just 2, unless you expect bot approval too 😄 |
|
1 to go ;) |
|
@lbroudoux we need ya man |
|
This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity 😴 It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this pull request, add a comment with detailed explanation. There can be many reasons why some specific pull request has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model. Let us figure out together how to push this pull request forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here. Thank you for your patience ❤️ |
|
/rtm |
|
Thank you everybody for your patience. Finally merged! |
|
Indeed got merged with the Git merge HEAD marks left. See https://github.com/asyncapi/bindings/pull/143/files#diff-ba2c28c470746625d05c982e58e3b6fdd081ddae606d2918856189bb787c8b4fR148 @char0n are you ok fixing this? Otherwise I'm happy to do it so we do not leave that broken for so much time. |
|
isn't it the same as #219 ? |
Description
Main specification document says this:
All the Schema Objects in main specification document has following type notation:
All binding objects specification documents contain following type notation:
From this, it is apparent that type notation for fields using
Schema Object, is not consistent within the spec and probably needs to be clarified. There is no reason (at least none that I can see currently) why to constrain binding objects fields to usingSchema Objectand not allowReference Objectin it's place as well. The AsynAPI specification tells us following:Alternatively, any time a Schema Object can be used, a Reference Object can be used in its place.- this can also be interpreted that usingReference Objectin binding objects fields is allowed, but if we check the schemas, they tell usReference Objectis not allowed. As we already stipulated before, the specification is the source of truth and not the schemas.This PR open possibility to use
Reference Objectin binding objects fields and updates schemas to use latest versions of AsyncAPI schemas (2.4.0). This also enhanced re-usability aspect of the spec.Related issue(s)
swagger-api/apidom#1832