search

json-schema-org / json-schema-spec

The JSON Schema specification
http://json-schema.org/
Other
3.76k stars 265 forks source link

draft-8 output format #754

Closed jbomer closed 5 years ago

jbomer commented 5 years ago

output format is one(schema) to many(errors) type

better for me is one(schema) to one(error) type

type Error = { valid:boolean, schemaLocation:string,//keyword in description absoluteSchemaLocation:string description:[keyword, message, ?instanceProperties(Items)[]] //ex. for object description:[ ['properties', 'properties subschema error', ['bar', 'foo']] ['additionalProperties', 'additionalProperties subschema error', ['x', 'y']] ] //ex. for array description:[ ['items', 'items subschema error',[3, 5]] ['allOf', 'allOf logic subschema(s) error'] ] //ex. for string description:['maxLength', 'some constraint error message']

instanceLocation:string
errors:Error[]

}

awwright commented 5 years ago

@jbomer You need clarify what the problem is. Is this an issue with the JSON Schema specification, or a library that you're using?

jbomer commented 5 years ago

Too complicated and large JSON Schema specification draft-8 output format for me. No problem, only my idea.

awwright commented 5 years ago

@jbomer I'm not sure what you mean by "output format". Where do you see that? Be specific.

jbomer commented 5 years ago

https://json-schema.org/work-in-progress/WIP-jsonschema-core.html#rfc.section.12.2 https://json-schema.org/work-in-progress/WIP-jsonschema-core.html#rfc.section.12.2

Od: "Austin Wright" notifications@github.com Komu: "json-schema-org/json-schema-spec" json-schema-spec@noreply.github.com Datum: 24.06.2019 09:39 Předmět: Re: [json-schema-org/json-schema-spec] draft-8 otput fromat (#754)

@jbomer https://github.com/jbomer I'm not sure what you mean by "output format". Where do you see that? Be specific. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/issues/754?email_source=notifications&email_token=ACQOT6SXQIB2XARZQIF7HZ3P4B22HA5CNFSM4H226EAKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODYMBUJI#issuecomment-504896037, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACQOT6RW2MT72D3E6SLU3K3P4B22HANCNFSM4H226EAA.

gregsdennis commented 5 years ago

@awwright, I think he means the new standard output format in draft 8.

@jbomer I wrote that part. There are four different output formats

Which one was too complicated for you?

In response to your suggestion of using a dictionary for the output, we needed something more complex because each keyword has several points of data to report on

You can easily transform this structure into whatever you need.

If you'd like to play around with it, my implementation, Manatee.Json (.Net), has a beta version that supports draft 8, including the output format.

Lastly, feel free to go read the issues that were opened to discuss a standardized output format. There's plenty of discussion there as to why we made the decisions we did.

jbomer commented 5 years ago

detailed output (in draft-8 12.4.3):

{ "valid": false, "keywordLocation": "#", "instanceLocation": "#", "errors": [ { "valid": false, "keywordLocation": "#/items/$ref", "absoluteKeywordLocation": "http://example.com/polygon#/$defs/point", "instanceLocation": "#/1", "errors": [ { "valid": false, "keywordLocation": "#/items/$ref/required", "absoluteKeywordLocation": "http://example.com/polygon#/$defs/point/required", "instanceLocation": "#/1", "error": "Required property 'y' not found." }, { "valid": false, "keywordLocation": "#/items/$ref/additionalProperties", "absoluteKeywordLocation": "http://example.com/polygon#/$defs/point/additionalProperties", "instanceLocation": "#/1/z", "error": "Additional property 'z' found but was invalid." } ] }, { "valid": false, "keywordLocation": "#/minItems", "instanceLocation": "#", "error": "Expected at least 3 items but found 2" } ] }

my idea of this output:

{ "valid": false, "shemaLocation": "#", "instanceLocation": "#", "error": "MinItems error. Items [1] subschema error.", "keywords": [ ["minItem"], ["items", [1]] ],
"errors": [ { "valid": false, "schemaLocation": "#/items/$ref/", "instanceLocation": "#/1", "error": "Required properties ['y'] not found. Additional propertis ['z'] subschema error", "keywords": [ ["required", ["y"]], ["additionalProperties", ["z"]] ] } ] }

gregsdennis commented 5 years ago

Please format large code blocks. That's nearly impossible to read.

  1. You don't give an absolute location. This was a requirement.
  2. You're comparing a hierarchical output to a list output. Of course the list is going to be terser.
  3. Your array format has a lot of inference going on as to what each item is based on it's location in the array. Generally it's better to be explicit.
  4. In combining the invalid data points into the array structure, you're also having to combine all of the error messages with no linkage between the invalid value, the error message, and the keyword that produced it.
  5. This format isn't great for object-oriented languages. A language-agnostic solution needs to be considered.

The issue I linked was opened almost exactly a year ago (1y1d). You've has plenty of time to suggest an alternative. We're in final approval and now you want to change it. It's just not going to happen.

Maybe in the next version, but you'll need to explain the logic you're using to build your output format and how it fulfills all of the same data points and requirements. (I suggest you read those issues to find out what the requirements are.)

Relequestual commented 5 years ago

Closing this issue because it sounds like you're asking for something which will be possible due to the different levels of output support.