Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Split "requiredDependencies" out of "dependencies" #573

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 4, 2018
Merged

Split "requiredDependencies" out of "dependencies" #573

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
a31684c
Split "requiredDependencies" out of "dependencies"
handrews Mar 23, 2018
72e4dc1
Rework requiredDependencies to be more consistent
handrews Apr 4, 2018
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
19 changes: 19 additions & 0 deletions jsonschema-core.xml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1295,6 +1295,24 @@
Omitting this keyword has the same behavior as an empty schema.
</t>
</section>

<section title="dependencies">
<t>
This keyword specifies subschemas that are evaluated if the instance
is an object and contains a certain property.
</t>
<t>
This keyword's value MUST be an object.
Each value in the object MUST be a valid JSON Schema.
</t>
<t>
If the object key is a property in the instance, the entire
instance must validate against the dependency value.
</t>
<t>
Omitting this keyword has the same behavior as an empty object.
</t>
</section>
</section>
</section>
</section>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1625,6 +1643,7 @@ User-Agent: product-name/5.4.1 so-cool-json-schema/1.0.2 curl/7.43.0
<list style="symbols">
<t>Moved "definitions" from the Validation specification here as "$defs"</t>
<t>Moved applicator keywords from the Validation specification as their own vocabulary</t>
<t>Moved "dependencies" from the Validation specification, but only the schema form</t>
</list>
</t>
<t hangText="draft-handrews-json-schema-01">
Expand Down
52 changes: 21 additions & 31 deletions jsonschema-validation.xml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -223,10 +223,6 @@
<t>
Validation keywords in a schema impose requirements for successful validation of an
instance. These keywords are all assertions without any annotation behavior.
<cref>
"dependencies" has applicator behavior, but this keyword will be split
into separate assertion and applicator keywords before the next draft publication.
</cref>
</t>

<section title="Validation Keywords for Any Instance Type" anchor="general">
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -454,36 +450,17 @@
</t>
</section>

<section title="dependencies">
<section title="requiredDependencies">
<t>
<cref>
This keyword may be split into two, with the variation that uses
an array of property names rather than a subschema getting a new
name. The dual behavior is confusing and relatively difficult to
implement. In the previous draft, we proposed dropping the keyword
altogether, or dropping one of its forms, but we received feedback
in support of keeping it. See issues #442 and #528 at
&lt;https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/issues&gt;
for further discussion. Further feedback is encouraged.
</cref>
This keyword specifies property requirements that are conditional
based on the presence of other properties.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not sure this sentence is useful considering the one that follows (in fact, I cannot easily read it (but maybe it's because I'm not native English)). Also, most keyword's description start out by "The value of this keyword MUST be ..." so this one would be (is already) an exception with this sentence. Not a big deal, though :)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good points, let me see if I can rework it to be more consistent and clear.

</t>
<t>
This keyword specifies rules that are evaluated if the instance is an object and
contains a certain property.
</t>
<t>
This keyword's value MUST be an object. Each property specifies a dependency.
Each dependency value MUST be an array or a valid JSON Schema.
</t>
<t>
If the dependency value is a subschema, and the dependency key is a property
in the instance, the entire instance must validate against the dependency value.
</t>
<t>
If the dependency value is an array, each element in the array,
if any, MUST be a string, and MUST be unique. If the dependency key is
a property in the instance, each of the items in the dependency
value must be a property that exists in the instance.
This keyword's value MUST be an object. Each property specifies
a dependent requirement, which MUST be an array. Each element
in the array, if any, MUST be a string, and MUST be unique.
If the dependency key is a property in the instance, each of the items
in the dependency value MUST be a property that exists in the instance.
</t>
<t>
Omitting this keyword has the same behavior as an empty object.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1067,6 +1044,18 @@
as a generic mechanism on which validation, hyper-schema, and extension
vocabularies can all be based
</t>
<t hangText='"dependencies"'>
This keyword had two different modes of behavior, which made it
relatively challenging to implement and reason about.
The schema form has been moved to Core under the original
"dependencies" keyword, as part of the applicator vocabulary.
It is analogous to "properties", except that instead of applying
its subschema to the property value, it applies it to the object
containing the property.
The property name array form is retained here and renamed to
"requiredDependencies", as it is an assertion which is a shortcut
for the conditional use of the "required" assertion keyword.
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1106,6 +1095,7 @@
<list style="symbols">
<t>Moved "definitions" to the core spec as "$defs"</t>
<t>Moved applicator keywords to the core spec</t>
<t>Renamed the array form of "dependencies" to "requiredDependencies", moved the schema form to the core spec</t>
</list>
</t>
<t hangText="draft-handrews-json-schema-validation-01">
Expand Down