Recursively describes the includes of array schemas #312 #313
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
hueniverse
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 21, 2014
Recursively describes the includes of array schemas #312
|
This thread has been automatically locked due to inactivity. Please open a new issue for related bugs or questions following the new issue template instructions. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #312
.includesproperty of the description.There doesn't currently seem to be a good way to get at just the includes. I could either dig into this._test or the existing description rules. I chose the latter since it felt marginally cleaner. The alternative is to track includes in the Array type, but that was a bigger change and I wanted to presume as little as possible. It's simple enough to simplify this logic to use a this._includes if that's preferred.
Similarly, I'm not currently doing this for excludes, but if that seems like good behavior it's simple enough to add.
I have some (small) stake in this from #241, as I'd need to get into the include types of arrays as well for metadata in some cases. I thought I'd try to be helpful in the meantime.