fix: correctly generate anyOf on unions with string and boolean constant #2208
Conversation
| } | ||
| ] | ||
| }, | ||
| "var8": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm unsure if we can use enum and type[] in the same type. Especially the combination of boolean, string, and true.
I'd bet that even if allowed, this would break in a lot of community parsers. Could we make this be a anyOf boolean const true and string enum s?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
isn’t this the analog case for var4 and var6, apart from using a number instead of boolean?
regarding whether it is allowed, at least for type and enum I don’t see a indication that they are exclusive (https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/draft-bhutton-json-schema-validation-01#section-6.1.1). it feels a bit redundant to specify both, as enum implicitly specifies type
pixunil
force-pushed
the
fix-union-string-with-constant-boolean
branch
from
b6dcdaa to
56bdaf7
Compare
|
@domoritz any objection in merging this PR? |
|
🚀 PR was released in |
as far as I understood while debugging through the test code,StringTypeis used forstringwhileLiteralTypeis used for a string constant like"s", thusStringTypecannot be part of a literal union.noticed that there is some magic regarding
stringwhich is hard to incorporate outside ofLiterallUnionTypeFormatter. but it appears to me that aStringTypecould get discarded when it is not marked as preserve literalscloses #2207
Version
Published prerelease version:
v2.5.0-next.1Changelog
🎉 This release contains work from new contributors! 🎉
Thanks for all your work!
❤️ Valentyne Stigloher (@pixunil)
❤️ Alex (@alexchexes)
🚀 Enhancement
🐛 Bug Fix
🔩 Dependency Updates
Authors: 3