Fixes validation of .workflow

[JayjeetAtGithub]

Adds validation rules for .workflow files

[pep8speaks]

Hello @JayjeetAtGithub! Thanks for updating this PR. We checked the lines you've touched for PEP 8 issues, and found:

There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! 🍻

Comment last updated at 2019-03-15 03:11:20 UTC

[JayjeetAtGithub]

@ivotron Can you please tell me what logic will be in the validate function if the validation is handled in normalize function ? As of now , before normalizing , all the validation errors are being catched in validate() and only if everthing is valid , we move on to normalizing in normalize()

[ivotron]

hey @JayjeetAtGithub

As of now , before normalizing , all the validation errors are being catched in validate() and only if everthing is valid , we move on to normalizing in normalize()

you're right. What I meant in my review was that, we wouldn't be doing any type-checking as part of the validate() method that you're implementing. Instead we would do type-checking in the normalize function. Maybe we can rename it to normalize_types() or something like that. And your method could be validate_syntax or parse?

[ivotron]

hey @JayjeetAtGithub . Is there anything you would like to discuss regarding this? Thanks!

[JayjeetAtGithub]

@ivotron Can you please tell what will be in there in validate_syntax() , since what my pr adds is only type checking , and if i do that in normalize_types() , then i cant understand what validate_syntax() / parse() will do ? Do i need to add some other logic ?

[ivotron]

@JayjeetAtGithub validate_syntax will only check for the presence of required elements, as specified in #504 . The normalize_types will look at types

[ivotron]

Thanks a lot @JayjeetAtGithub ! There are a couple of pep8 issues that pep8speaks is complaining about. Also, could you please rebase master again? Sorry 😩

[ivotron]

thanks a lot for your patience @JayjeetAtGithub !