-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25
fix: correct return type of getSchemaType #85
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
10 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
f6a6a47
fix: correct return type of getSchemaType
mlewando c717e10
fix: handle refs in oneOf/allOf/anyOf while getting schema type
mlewando 959ce94
fix: build current lib
mlewando 8a0ce49
fix: explicitly use resolve ref instead of get node
mlewando 9934338
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into fix--getSchemaType-…
mlewando 2f3817c
add tests
mlewando 0fbdb36
use resolve ref
mlewando 2e24267
fix: resolveRef ts bug
mlewando 4fced71
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/main' into fix--getSchemaType-…
mlewando a6daf1c
chore: move tests of getSchemaType close to the implementation of tha…
mlewando File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
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.
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 out of scope of this merge request. I am wondering, why are you adding ref-resolution here?
If we were to add this:
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.
the short story here is that first I realised that types of
getSchemaTypeare off, so I fixed them and created this PR, later while working on my product I've seen that the function is also not working correctly ononeOfnodes withrefs, so I thought this PR is close enough to include this as well... If you prefer I can split this into two PRs (or we can keep it as single one if that's ok)as for
node.if.resolveRef- I think it should work... I pushed the changes about that, are those ok?and if you won't mind - what's the real benefit of using
resolveRefhere? I think thatgetNodelooks to be way more generic way of "get me whatever there is underneath" right? under the hood it's also looks to handle more edge cases thanresolveRef🤔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.
there is one more issue here:
resolveRefI have errors in current testsgetNodeeverything works correctlyI don't have a root cause of the error yet
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 am unable to reproduce issues based your tests:
On your branch, using
works just fine on my end.
getNodedoes a couple of things in addition to resolving refs, likeWe can save unnecessary work and simply use resolveRef. Especially since this is a core function we should be explicit on the actions we use and work on the simpler api.
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.
hmmm... maybe I'm running tests somehow wrongly... I'm just executing
yarn testbut I don't know how it could work tbh...
I see quite clear bug in
src/draft2019-09/keywords/$ref.tsinresolveReffunction (line 72). It has optionalpathparam, that I'm not providing to it (as it's optional and I don't need it). Then on line 75 it's callingresolveRecursiveRefwith that optional path as second parameter, which is not optional inresolveRecursiveRefdeclaration (src/draft2019-09/keywords/$ref.ts:102-103), which obviously results in error on line 108 where it tries to dohistory.lengthwithhistorybeingundefined.I fixed that bug by providing empty path in
src/draft2019-09/keywords/$ref.tsand then I usedresolveRefingetSchemaType. Now it should all be good