You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Here, /properties/bar and /properties/baz are identical. Is this the author's intent, or are these two semantically (business rules) different yet functionally (shape/structure) identical? Do we need a way to discern this? Maybe #50 can help identify author intent. For example, if the subschemas have the same title, it was intended that they're the same type.
($ref'd subschemas are obviously the same type.)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Json schema type integer allows integer and float types with integer values. Should code generation represent that as integer only? If so then that is a departure form json schema definitions.
Subschemas and nested types appear everywhere. Generally, a subschema will represent a new type.
For this schema, we have four types being represented:
foo
andbar
/properties/bar
(#45 discusses built-in types, so we'll leave that out of this issue.)
Specifically, we need to focus on the two custom objects: the top-level and whatever
bar
is.I would expect a generator to create two types from this schema. Are there any restrictions that people can see?
What happens when a subschema is duplicated?
Here,
/properties/bar
and/properties/baz
are identical. Is this the author's intent, or are these two semantically (business rules) different yet functionally (shape/structure) identical? Do we need a way to discern this? Maybe #50 can help identify author intent. For example, if the subschemas have the sametitle
, it was intended that they're the same type.(
$ref
'd subschemas are obviously the same type.)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: