-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 215
[25] Add an "Optional Tests" section to the README #345
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
Conversation
Optional Tests | ||
-------------- | ||
|
||
Tests in the `optional/` directory test optional validation behavior. Validators |
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.
Thanks! I was hoping to even say a bit about each of the files present here -- e.g. a list of each file we have, and an explanation/link to why it's optional (e.g., for zeroTerminatedFloats.json
, it's for languages that do not have floating point types. For format
, it's because it being a validation keyword rather than informative is optional, etc.
This way there's a short sentence about each and a list of why they're not required.
Does that make sense?
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.
Could this be put into the test data itself, either in the 'description' field or in an additional 'comment' field?
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.
Decent sounding idea to me.
I can complete this and propose new words as soon as we resolve json-schema-org/json-schema-spec#898. In the meantime, I've pushed a latest draft. |
f04d0d0
to
fdd5d97
Compare
Amazing, already quite an improvement :) Sounds good on the clarification ticket. |
Included are detailed descriptions of each optional feature plus links.
arbitrary precision.\ | ||
See: [6. Numbers](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8259#section-6)\ | ||
Also see: | ||
* 2019-09: [4.2. Validation of Numeric Instances](https://json-schema.org/draft/2019-09/json-schema-validation.html#rfc.section.4.2) |
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 going to be a bit of a pain in the butt to maintain this as new versions come out (since each time that happens we'll have to go find the relevant new section in that draft).
But such is life I suppose, I don't have a better suggestion.
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.
Great! lgtm
I think I'd like to wait for the resolution to #348 (comment) and my response, before committing. |
Closing this one, as it's in need of updating but we'll put these in a comment in each file like the suggestion above mentioned. A PR doing so is welcome if no one else gets to it first! |
Closes #25