Errors for required properties do not contain the fragment correctly.

[yorickpeterse]

Assume we have the following script (based on the documentation in the README):

require 'json-schema'

schema = {
  "type" => "object",
  "required" => ["a"],
  "properties" => {
    "a" => {"type" => "integer"}
  }
}

data = {}

JSON::Validator.validate!(schema, data)

Running this results in the following output:

The property '#/' did not contain a required property of 'a' in schema 221df103-b050-5d5c-8ee8-aa1d185ac383# (JSON::Schema::ValidationError)

This error message doesn't seem to include the fragment for the "a" property correctly. If we specify an incorrect type on the other hand it is set properly:

require 'json-schema'

schema = {
  "type" => "object",
  "required" => ["a"],
  "properties" => {
    "a" => {"type" => "integer"}
  }
}

data = {'a' => 'foo'}

JSON::Validator.validate!(schema, data)

Which results in:

The property '#/a' of type String did not match the following type: integer in schema 221df103-b050-5d5c-8ee8-aa1d185ac383# (JSON::Schema::ValidationError)

[pd]

The error message seems correct to me; it is stating that the object at #/ was expected to have a property a, but doesn't. If the fragment were to be #/a, I would read that as an expectation that #/a/a existed.

[yorickpeterse]

@pd Hm good point, but in that case this could be clarified by using a better error message. The current error message is far too cryptic.

[anicholson]

👍 @pd - the error messages are what I would expect to see. @yorickpeterse, how would you make them better? :)

[hoxworth]

I am definitely open to suggestions on improving the wording of the error text, but I am unsure that this particular message needs more clarity. I would be happy to hear suggestions, but I am going to close this issue as it is not a code defect. Please feel free to continue the discussion!

[anicholson]

The only way I can think of making the error message more informative would be to display the part of the schema that fails the validation - but that would be a fair bit of effort, I think.

[yorickpeterse]

Something along the lines of the following is at least less confusing: The property '#/a' is required in schema .... Reading the current error message provides little help with figuring out what field(s) you actually need to add to pass validation.