Add schema validation fields #50
Merged
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
Some schema validation fields are missing or not implemented according to the JSON schema validation specification [1] (which is used in several parts of the OpenAPI 3.0 specification). This adds the missing fields and fixes the type of minimum, which may only take integers and not arbitrary schemas. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wright-json-schema-validation-00#section-5
pluehne
force-pushed
the
add-schema-validation-fields
branch
from
e3170e4
to
bbec549
Compare
softprops
approved these changes
Jan 17, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Some schema validation fields are missing or not implemented according to the JSON schema validation specification (which is used in several parts of the OpenAPI 3.0 specification). This adds the missing fields and fixes the type of
minimum, which may only take integers and not arbitrary schemas.Notes
pattern“SHOULD” be a valid regular expression, I suggest representing it as a plainString.exclusiveMinimumandexclusiveMaximumfrom Boolean to integer. To comply with OpenAPI 3.0, we have to stick with Booleans for now.