fix!: fixed handling of additionalProperties to handle the bool/json-schema nature better

[TristanSpeakEasy]

This PR introduces a fix (via way of a breaking change) to allow a schema in an additionalProperties field to be accessed correctly. It also tried to standardise the access of bool/schema properties like additionalProperties and unevaluatedProperties.

This basically fixes the below schema not being returned as a SchemaProxy:

type: object
additionalProperties:
  allOf:
    - type: string
    - type: array
      items:
        type: string

One of the breaking changes this introduces is not dealing with additionalProperties containing non-schema arrays or maps.

It now largely expects additionalProperties to be compliant to json-schema

also incidentally I found a bug that caused an infinite hang and fixed that as part of this

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 5 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (3c9415b) 99.80% compared to head (3a28c24) 99.74%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #180      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.80%   99.74%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         148      148              
  Lines       10673    10646      -27     
==========================================
- Hits        10652    10619      -33     
- Misses         21       27       +6     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	99.74% <91.07%> (-0.06%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files	Coverage Δ
datamodel/high/base/schema.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
index/extract_refs.go	99.53% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
datamodel/low/base/schema.go	99.46% <95.83%> (-0.21%)	⬇️
what-changed/model/schema.go	98.98% <77.77%> (-0.81%)	⬇️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[TristanSpeakEasy]

@daveshanley also contains a fix for enum extraction that sorts the issues we were seeing after the last change

[TristanSpeakEasy]

fixes #175

[daveshanley]

Thank you for fixing this!

The next major version jump (because this is a breaking change) will need to include #148 as well. I am not sure how much of a conflict that will create if I merge in that first, then this PR.

Does that work for you?

[TristanSpeakEasy]

Yeah I can fix any conflicts when that other branch is merged