Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
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
fix: fix type of payload in MessageExample #561
fix: fix type of payload in MessageExample #561
Changes from 2 commits
8aac004
21c25a4
dffbf5d
20d0e0c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why maintaining a list of types here? 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In previous versions here was
any
type. I found in SO that's better way to simulate any type and don't broke validation is to enumerate each JSON Schema typeThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why is it going to break validation? When
type
is not specified, it can be any type, right? If some tools don't get it right, shouldn't it be fixed in the tools instead?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have checked and yes, it's working. But according to type definition it must be string or array of strings
I found only one comment from 2015, where not presented
type
meansany
@jviotti what do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's either a string or an array of strings but it's not required, so we can decide not to put it there. Effectively, I think it means "any" but good idea pinging the JSON Schema folks as, in the end, they know best.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Anyway, I'm ready to remove
type
and patch our schema for JetBrains IDE and other validators, as I have already done, previouslyMy main concern is to try to bring changes back, here, to make our schema compatible with various IDEs and environments where AsyncAPI specification will be validated via our JSON Schemas
And be sure that this changes are synced with JSON Schema specification requirements
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Understandable mate. It's a fine line between trying to be pragmatic and keeping the spec strict. I'm not against maintaining this list of types but code you don't write is code you don't have to maintain. Arguably, explicit is better than implicit. Let's see what others have to say 🤷♂️ I'm not going to block this PR because of this line.