Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarify the intent/meaning/behavior of @schema/type any=True in reference documentation #516

Closed
pivotaljohn opened this issue Oct 21, 2021 · 0 comments
Assignees
Labels
documentation This issue indicates a change to the docs should be considered enhancement This issue is a feature request priority/unprioritized-backlog Higher priority than priority/awaiting-more-evidence but not planned. Contributions are welcome.

Comments

@pivotaljohn
Copy link
Contributor

(Inspired by #515)

The reference documentation for @schema/type any=True does describe in general terms what this annotation means.
However, it does not make clear:

  • how is the contained YAML treated (i.e. the fragment within the annotated node)?
  • can I "break out" of this "any" mode by putting a @schema/type any=False deeper in the YAML tree?

The intention of @schema/type any=True is for ytt to treat it as ordinary YAML (potentially, but not likely templated).

  • unlike in schema-declaring YAML, the contained fragment allows array values with any number of array items. (TODO: link to bug here)
  • this also means that no array item defaulting occurs within the fragment.
  • @schema/... annotations within this fragment is an error (TODO: link to enhancement request here)
@pivotaljohn pivotaljohn added enhancement This issue is a feature request documentation This issue indicates a change to the docs should be considered labels Oct 21, 2021
@pivotaljohn pivotaljohn added the priority/unprioritized-backlog Higher priority than priority/awaiting-more-evidence but not planned. Contributions are welcome. label Oct 26, 2021
@gcheadle-vmware gcheadle-vmware self-assigned this Nov 8, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation This issue indicates a change to the docs should be considered enhancement This issue is a feature request priority/unprioritized-backlog Higher priority than priority/awaiting-more-evidence but not planned. Contributions are welcome.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants