This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 31, 2024. It is now read-only.
additionalProperties, nullable and minItems introduced #31
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
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hy!
This got lot bigger than I expected... And it is not fully consistent, but working.
Merging schemas should go two directions. There is a use-case when I have a lot of things, and I want to find the most suitable schema to them. For this, I want to restrict the merge. So if I have a field in one schema that is nullable, and the same field in on other schema is non-nullable, I want to make the merged field non-nullable. But there is an other use-case, when I want to find out if a schema is a subschema of an another or not. In this case I want to merge permissive, so merging a non-nullable with a nullable schould be nullable. I found out this fundamentally easy thing at the end of my last test-case, and I didn't have time to properly refactor the whole thing, so I committed this as-is bcs it is working already, and covers a LOT more functionality than the prev code, and I think it is a good starting point.
I think the test are describing what works and how. I think in most cases this will be the intended behavior.
I'm open for further discussions and cleanups.