Closed dpopp07 closed 12 months ago
I was wondering if we should consider checking the name and/or title fields
That's a good question, needed to take some time to think it through. I'm not sure if there is a name
field for schemas, but from what I read in the JSONSchema spec, title
seems to be a field to declare the purpose of the schema, not give it a name. I can't remember if we use it for SDK Gen or not but even if we do, tooling isn't as much in scope IMO since we adjust casing per language anyways.
Another thing is, we do have a rule to check for schemas not being defined inline. For the exceptions to that rule, we probably don't need names anyways and so I don't think they're important to check with this rule. That said - I will mark this rule dependent on that rule. Something I'm trying to get in the habit of is view the rules as atomic but still inter-connected and allow rules to make assumptions based on what we check for in other rules. I want to keep track of what those assumptions are in the comments and I missed that for that rule, so I'm glad you reminded me!
In terms of implementation, I think I would advocate for keeping the check limited to components.schemas
. Let me know how you feel about that
Let me know how you feel about that
That's fine.
This adds a new rule to verify that schema names (i.e. the keys in the 'schemas' object in the 'components' object) are upper camel case, as specified in the API Handbook.
PR summary
PR Checklist
General checklist
Please make sure that your PR fulfills the following requirements:
Checklist for adding a new validation rule: