fix(index): support json schema format keyword again

[Fdawgs]

closes #48

AJV v6 supported the JSON Schema format keyword however, with v7, this functionality has been moved to a separate module.

This PR simply adds that module.

Checklist

• run npm run test and npm run benchmark
• tests and/or benchmarks are included
• commit message and code follows the Developer's Certification of Origin
  and the Code of conduct

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 701946363

• 1 of 1 (100.0%) changed or added relevant line in 1 file are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.1%) to 90.769%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 701913365:	0.1%
Covered Lines:	40
Relevant Lines:	41

---

💛 - Coveralls

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 701282640

• 1 of 1 (100.0%) changed or added relevant line in 1 file are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.1%) to 90.769%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 660890763:	0.1%
Covered Lines:	40
Relevant Lines:	41

---

💛 - Coveralls

[climba03003]

Instead of adding the support one by one. I suggest to allow user pass a custom ajv instance.

[mcollina]

Can you add a note on the README about this?

---

I would also ask if it would make sense to bump the Ajv dep to 8.0.0 and use ajv-formats@2.0.1.

[Fdawgs]

I would also ask if it would make sense to bump the Ajv dep to 8.0.0 and use ajv-formats@2.0.1.

Best to close this PR and wait for #49 then?

[mcollina]

I would also ask if it would make sense to bump the Ajv dep to 8.0.0 and use ajv-formats@2.0.1.

Best to close this PR and wait for #49 then?

I just landed that

[Fdawgs]

I would also ask if it would make sense to bump the Ajv dep to 8.0.0 and use ajv-formats@2.0.1.

Best to close this PR and wait for #49 then?

I just landed that

Great! 👍

Rebased and updated to 2.0.1

[mcollina]

Instead of adding the support one by one. I suggest to allow user pass a custom ajv instance.

what about this @Fdawgs ?

[Fdawgs]

Instead of adding the support one by one. I suggest to allow user pass a custom ajv instance.

Sounds like a separate piece of work from this fix, is it not @climba03003?

[climba03003]

Instead of adding the support one by one. I suggest to allow user pass a custom ajv instance.

Sounds like a separate piece of work from this fix, is it not @climba03003?

@Fdawgs I think it is like another solution to the issue. It pass the responsibility to the user (we only provide minimal validation, they can expend it on their needs) and increase the flexibility of validation.

[mcollina]

I agree with @climba03003

[Fdawgs]

@climba03003 @mcollina FYI got it on my todo list to come back and refactor the plugin to support this (unless someone beats me to it), so not forgotten!

[mcollina]

no worries