🐞 Bug: Example message schemas in AsyncAPI 3.0 spec missing required fields

[wei123-web]

Describe the bug

Some example message schemas in the AsyncAPI 3.0 specification do not include all required fields defined in their corresponding component schemas. This makes the examples invalid and may confuse developers who rely on them for correct implementation.

To Reproduce

Steps to reproduce the behavior:

1. Open the AsyncAPI 3.0 specification repository.
2. Navigate to the examples/ directory.
3. Inspect a message example (for example, Kafka or AMQP examples).
4. Compare the example fields with the required fields defined in components/schemas.

Expected behavior

All example message schemas should include every required field defined in their corresponding schema definitions.

Sample document

N/A – issue observed directly in the AsyncAPI 3.0 spec examples.

Screenshots

N/A – screenshots can be added if a specific example is requested.

Additional context

This issue affects developers who use the AsyncAPI spec examples as references and may lead to incorrect or invalid implementations. I am happy to contribute a fix by updating the examples if needed.

In the AsyncAPI 3.0.0 specification, some schema examples are not rendered or resolved correctly in the documentation. While the first example is displayed as expected, the other examples do not show their schema structure and appear unresolved or missing in the rendered output. This creates confusion for users trying to understand how multiple schema examples should be defined and used.

[github-actions]

Welcome to AsyncAPI. Thanks a lot for reporting your first issue. Please check out our contributors guide and the instructions about a basic recommended setup useful for opening a pull request.
Keep in mind there are also other channels you can use to interact with AsyncAPI community. For more details check out this issue.

[wei123-web]

To clarify, I noticed this while reviewing the AsyncAPI 3.0 examples, but I realize the issue description currently lacks a concrete reference.

Before making any changes, I’d like to confirm:

• whether missing required fields in examples is considered a bug, or
• whether unresolved / partially rendered schemas are expected behavior.

If helpful, I can update the issue with a specific example file and line reference once confirmed.