Open LasneF opened 3 months ago
This is an upgrade to the rule, it's not a bug - this rule is manual, and it's not checking that deep I don't think when performing a required check.
notice that to me the rules is accurate and to me (opinionned but not factual) it s a good practice , and to me this looks bad design. but that can be not the case for others
as it is a valid pattern ; it should be a dedidated rules.
=> Need to put in place a sharp issue naming convention : each case should have its own unique identifier should be easy to put in place straight
=> given the fact that we have unique identifier for each case , adding a tag mechanism could be usefull like here schema , good practice etc , that you can display to categorize the issue . can be then leverage in a ui for filtering / sorting purpose
nb: do not change the rules just tag it as good practice , and not
i would propose naming : required-properties-missing , tag schema, good practice , and proper documentation show casing what is good , what is definitly wrong , was is passable like the use case propose
given this object , vaccum raise an error about pom not defined
.\component-descriptor.yml:2617:7 | error |
required
fieldpom
is not defined inproperties
| oas-schema-checkaccoding to JSonSchema the scenario is valid , even if to me looks bad design
still Vacuum need to clearly differenciate was is invalid from structural point of view vs what is opinonated rules
=> not sure if it is a bug in the json schema structure validator, if it is a design , and opinionated rules
validated against https://github.com/hyperjump-io/json-schema & https://json-everything.net/json-schema/