build schema_validators dict for bluesky issue #1197

[jklynch]

A dict 'schema_validators' is constructed of jsonschema.Validator instances. The intention is that this dict be imported by code wanting to validate JSON.

Motivation and Context

This change is in support of using jsonschema>3: bluesky/bluesky#1197.

jsonschema.validate() is currently used in bluesky but has been deprecated. The 'new' method is to extend a jsonschema validator class which takes about 4 lines of code. I suggest putting those 4 lines in event-model and caching one validator for each schema.

How Has This Been Tested?

[danielballan]

This looks on track so me so I have gone ahead and marked it as ready for review so that CI will start running against it.

Please update all the places that we use jsonschema.validate , such as

event-model/event_model/__init__.py

Line 73 in 54e9259

jsonschema.validate(output_doc,

to use these validators instead. Please also update the requirements.txt to specify the minimum version of jsonschema that supports this new usage.

[jklynch]

I think I have corrected those embarrassing oversights.

[danielballan]

Haha, not at all! Very useful PR for Week 3 on the team!

[danielballan]

I think this is ready. I have taken it for a spin interactively and it holds up.

This should get at least one more pair of eyes before being merged, given its importance.

[mrakitin]

Looks good to me, thanks @jklynch!
Left a minor question regarding imports, otherwise good to go.

[mrakitin]

Why did those imports moved from their original places?

[jklynch]

PEP8 compulsion. I was weak.

…

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 3:50 PM Maksim Rakitin ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** approved this pull request. Looks good to me, thanks @jklynch <https://github.com/jklynch>! Left a minor question regarding imports, otherwise good to go. ------------------------------ In event_model/__init__.py <#79 (comment)>: > -__all__ = ['DocumentNames', 'schemas', 'compose_run'] +import jsonschema +import numpy Why did those imports moved from their original places? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#79?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABCI2RLNPV7RQS3FFNCVHF3PW3YO5A5CNFSM4HOWEV32YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFWFIHK3DMKJSXC5LFON2FEZLWNFSXPKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOBZR237I#pullrequestreview-241413629>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABCI2RMAIQQC6VMKR2JKWL3PW3YO5ANCNFSM4HOWEV3Q> .

[danielballan]

I don't think we ever really decided whether we would adopt the "builtins, then external libs, then package-local libs" breakdown, but I have heard it argued for and I am happy to adopt it.

[danielballan]

Per quick Slack check-in with @mrakitin we are indeed all on the same page that this is a good and reasonable compulsion. Thanks again @jklynch!

[mrakitin]

I really like it though, as I expressed it some time ago myself. PyCharm normally does it for you "for free" ("Optimize imports" menu or something like that).