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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Add annotation tests from @hyperjump/json-schema #770
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Add annotation tests from @hyperjump/json-schema #770
Changes from all commits
0aef5f8
55b9fad
3426e76
9f90e2d
2779c99
35ccff6
265103e
ec05504
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.
I'm not sure this can be enforced. (I see you do have "as a convention".) If a schema uses `properties: {foo: ..., bar: ...}, who's to say which property is evaluated first? As a result, the annotations can be produced in any order.
If this is just for the sake of test organization, then maybe the request needs some more clarity (e.g. "sorted alphabetically by location pointer" or something)
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.
This is about the
expected
property which means it applies to a single location. So, your example isn't relevant because each property would be part of a different "assertion". No ordering is recommended for assertions.Implementations can evaluate keywords in any order they want. If everyone who contributes tests with
expected
ordered consistent with their implementation, there will soon be no consistency with the suite as a whole. Inconsistency makes the tests harder to reason about and harder to review. Top-down based ordering is both an intuitive and neutral choice for us to stick to.Maybe I'm the only one who thinks maintaining this consistency has value. The vast majority of tests will only have one expected value per assertion, so maybe it won't even come up enough to be an issue anyway. In any case, it will be up to us to enforce it or not in the review process. From the perspective of test harness implementations, the order shouldn't change the pass/fail result for a test.