Processing properties are not required on providers #8 #13
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Emmanuel Mathot <emmanuel.mathot@gmail.com>
| - The fields can also be used in summaries, assets or Item asset definitions. | ||
|
|
||
| If the extension is given in the `stac_extensions` list, at least one of the fields must be specified in any of the given places listed above. | ||
| Please note that the JSON Schema might not be able to validate this requirement in all cases due to limitations in JSON Schema. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we make sure which exact places this requirement is validated in, or at least which places it should be validated in? Then we could add tests to make sure it works that way. Otherwise users of the extension have to be JSON Schema experts to work out whether their use case is even validated.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure, but I don't have the time for it. A proposal would be welcome.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Working on some tests which illustrate the existing (buggy) behaviour.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think I've fixed the main issues in #9. Except for some remaining weird behaviour it should now be possible to conclusively say where these fields can be used, and how.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I assumed you'd want some text to be added to this PR which makes requirements clear by just reading the text. Otherwise, we could just merge this now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Theistext doesn't tell the user exactly where these properties can be used such that they will be validated, but the tests in #9 do. Maybe we could use the tests as a template for updating the documentation, so that it's precise and complete?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And I assumed you'd provide the text as you had worked on #9 ;-)
|
Merging for now. Additional changes (e.g. #13 (comment)) can be added in a new PR. |
Attempt to clarify requirements, fixes #8. @l0b0