-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 75
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
Revert OpenAPI version number to 3.0.0 #1210
Conversation
This was bumped in 8be2ec4 but we do not actually abide by 3.1.0, as can be seen in the use of `example` instead of `examples. v3.1.0 is a breaking change, the technical committee decided not to follow semver, see <https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/releases/tag/3.1.0-rc0>. Support for OpenAPI v3.1 is not offered by the current Legislation Explorer version and upgrading is too costly. See <openfisca/legislation-explorer#236>.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you for this fix of the OpenAPI specification version!
@@ -62,4 +62,4 @@ def test_situation_definition(body): | |||
|
|||
|
|||
def test_respects_spec(body): | |||
assert not [error for error in openapi_v3_spec_validator.iter_errors(body)] | |||
assert not [error for error in OpenAPIV30SpecValidator(body).iter_errors()] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👌
Seen in this documentation (pdf). Also in the source code of
openapi_spec_validator
, OpenAPIV30SpecValidator and openapi_v3_spec_validator.
# propertyNames: # this keyword is part of JSON Schema but is not supported in OpenAPI v3.0.0 | ||
# pattern: "^[12][0-9]{3}-[01][0-9]-[0-3][0-9]$" # all keys are ISO dates |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I understand that we are dropping
propertyNames
because it wasn't and is not supported by OpenAPI and that we are keeping it here as documentation for humans.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This was bumped in 8be2ec4 (#989). We do not actually abide by 3.1.0, as can be seen in the use of
example
instead ofexamples
, support for which was dropped. v3.1.0 is indeed a breaking change, but the OpenAPI technical committee decided not to follow SemVer.Support for OpenAPI v3.1 is not offered by the current Legislation Explorer version and upgrading is too costly (see openfisca/legislation-explorer#236).
Technical changes
propertyNames
inValues
definition