Skip to content

Conversation

@reversearrow
Copy link
Contributor

libopenapi passes map[interface{}]interface{} structures for deeply nested objects or complex mappings in the OpenAPI specification, which are not allowed in JSON. These structures cannot be properly converted to JSON by libopenapi and cannot be validated by jsonschema, resulting in ambiguous errors.

This flag allows pre-converting from YAML to JSON to bypass this limitation of the libopenapi.

This is a workaround to bypass this limitation at the moment.

@reversearrow
Copy link
Contributor Author

@daveshanley When you a time to review. It's a temporary workaround of this issue when testing with the script.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 20, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 17 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 97.07%. Comparing base (bde0446) to head (d179b28).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
cmd/validate/main.go 0.00% 17 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #202      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.41%   97.07%   -0.35%     
==========================================
  Files          45       45              
  Lines        3987     4001      +14     
==========================================
  Hits         3884     3884              
- Misses        103      117      +14     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 97.07% <0.00%> (-0.35%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copy link
Member

@daveshanley daveshanley left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. I was going backwards and forwards on the coverage drop, but I can't see any point in building a test for this new code.

@daveshanley daveshanley merged commit c789944 into pb33f:main Dec 2, 2025
2 of 4 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants