FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending |
URL:
| Home
Tools: [Download Repo ZIP]   [Original HTTPS Page]

Add JSON Schema that is v1.1 compliant by VGirol · Pull Request #1603 · json-api/json-api · GitHub

Add JSON Schema that is v1.1 compliant - #1603

Open
VGirol wants to merge 11 commits into
json-api:gh-pagesfrom
VGirol:schema-1.1
Open

Add JSON Schema that is v1.1 compliant#1603
VGirol wants to merge 11 commits into
json-api:gh-pagesfrom
VGirol:schema-1.1

Conversation

VGirol commented Jan 18, 2022
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I've only added sample files in relation with the new features of the 1.1 version.
I still have to add the rules regarding the @-members and the extension members.
Coming soon...

auvipy commented Jan 19, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown

great job! thanks for handling this!

VGirol commented Jan 24, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

According to this PR #1127, i've added a schema to validate requests that update a resource or relationship.

VGirol commented Feb 8, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Actually, the JSON schema for v1.0 uses the draft-07 version.
Do we keep this version ? Or do i need to upgrade to the latest version (2020-12) ?

auvipy commented Feb 8, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown

1.1 should be latest jsonschema compliant, like openAPI 3.1 does, IMHO.

VGirol commented May 7, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Could someone tell me what is missing for this PR to be merged ?

bradjones1 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality

Addressing typo found during CI integration with Drupal's dictionary. s/forbiden/forbidden

Comment thread _schemas/1.1/schema.json Outdated
"type": "object",
"allOf": [
{
"$ref": "#/definitions/relationshipsForbidenMemberName"

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality
Suggested change
"$ref": "#/definitions/relationshipsForbidenMemberName"
"$ref": "#/definitions/relationshipsForbiddenMemberName"

Comment thread _schemas/1.1/schema.json Outdated
"type": "object",
"allOf": [
{
"$ref": "#/definitions/relationshipsForbidenMemberName"

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality
Suggested change
"$ref": "#/definitions/relationshipsForbidenMemberName"
"$ref": "#/definitions/relationshipsForbiddenMemberName"

Comment thread _schemas/1.1/schema.json Outdated
},
"unevaluatedProperties": false
},
"relationshipsForbidenMemberName": {

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality
Suggested change
"relationshipsForbidenMemberName": {
"relationshipsForbiddenMemberName": {

VGirol commented May 10, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Corrected.

auvipy commented Jun 10, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@dgeb can we consider this for 1.1?

auvipy commented Aug 4, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@jelhan can you take a look here please?

jelhan commented Aug 4, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@jelhan can you take a look here please?

To be honest I'm not an expert for JSON schema. But I agree that we need to improve in that regard. Thanks a lot for following up.

Personally I would feel much more comfortable with reviewing if we would have some test coverage for the schema. Like having a set of JSON:API documents, which are validated with the schema in CI.

Also it's unclear to me how we could version the schema. v1.1 is not stable yet formally. We might need at least two schemas: one for the current stable version and one for the upcoming version.

We may want to setup such an infrastructure before moving forward.

jelhan commented Aug 4, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Just had a look at the proposed changes in this PR and noticed that it is already addressing some points I raised above. Seems to be a great starting point! 👏

auvipy commented Aug 5, 2022
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown

yes there is another PR for the v1.0 :) #1600

dgeb commented Aug 5, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I really appreciate this work and its importance for the spec. In my opinion, an official schema is not a blocker for the v1.1 release but it would be ideal to release both simultaneously. I think we stand a good chance to finalize the schema in the same time frame that the final v1.1 RC is being reviewed, without delaying either.

auvipy commented Aug 5, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown

I really appreciate this work and its importance for the spec. In my opinion, an official schema is not a blocker for the v1.1 release but it would be ideal to release both simultaneously. I think we stand a good chance to finalize the schema in the same time frame that the final v1.1 RC is being reviewed, without delaying either.

thats a reasonable plan

VGirol force-pushed the schema-1.1 branch 3 times, most recently from 7eeae6a to e90b970 Compare August 12, 2022 22:17
VGirol added 2 commits August 13, 2022 00:38
Add meta member to all test files with informations about errors present in the document.

VGirol commented Mar 23, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Is there anything that is blocking this PR? :) Should I do something? Thank you

auvipy left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality

I think we can move with it after we complete merging the schema for v1.0

auvipy commented Nov 13, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown

in fact we can move with it in 1.1 branch as well. in case v 1.0 need more work?

VGirol commented Nov 13, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

We must validate and merge v1.0 before merging it in 1.1 branch because this PR uses the validation script that is introduced in the #1600 (./_schemas/scripts/validator.js).

auvipy commented Nov 13, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Ok great. Lets complete the v1.0 first

bbrala commented Jul 10, 2024

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

v1.0 seems complete, validator is merged. Think this could move forward.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Any chance this could be merged ^^

kazemek added a commit to kazforge/jsonapi-java that referenced this pull request Aug 2, 2026
Pins the four unreleased JSON:API 1.1 draft-PR schemas (json-api/json-api#1603) and validates
writer-generated bytes offline against them; schema acceptance is supplemental evidence only.
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants


Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL