search

w3c / wot-binding-templates

Web of Things (WoT) Binding Templates
http://w3c.github.io/wot-binding-templates/
Other
23 stars 25 forks source link

Modbus: move required array to modbusForm #297

Closed alicanipek closed 1 year ago

alicanipek commented 1 year ago

I updated the Modbus json schema and moved required array to modbusForm object. It was inside properties object but it should be inside modbusForm object.

netlify[bot] commented 1 year ago

Deploy Preview for wot-binding-templates ready!

Name Link
Latest commit 7d4ecf4045f4603f9f34f9bd0d261f0bc352156f
Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/wot-binding-templates/deploys/651182c917c6b90008925e09
Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-297--wot-binding-templates.netlify.app
Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

relu91 commented 1 year ago

Thank you for your contribution, but you are working on an outdated version of the JSON schema. The correct one is coming from #296. Can you check if it works for you?

alicanipek commented 1 year ago

Hi @relu91 , I saw that pull request, but it doesn't have the required array. Can we say that those properties are no longer required?

relu91 commented 1 year ago

There has been quite of refactoring in the Modbus binding document. As you can see, no form element is required anymore. The elements you are talking about have been moved to the URL.

hadjian commented 1 year ago

Hi @relu91, thx for the hint. Is there a discussion/rational why this was moved to the URL? I liked the human readability of explicit attributes.

relu91 commented 1 year ago

I remember a looong discussion about these topics. I've found an issue and the corresponding PR where you can find some of the points that were discussed (if you want more details probably we should dig some minutes files from the calls).

I remember that human readability was actually one of the pros of keeping the old design. We took that into account but, in the end, we preferred to follow RFC 3986 more closely.

hadjian commented 1 year ago

From the discussion I now understand. Thx @relu91. We already implemented it in our connectivity solution.

I remember a looong discussion about these topics. I've found an issue and the corresponding PR where you can find some of the points that were discussed (if you want more details probably we should dig some minutes files from the calls).

I remember that human readability was actually one of the pros of keeping the old design. We took that into account but, in the end, we preferred to follow RFC 3986 more closely.