Test-Json: Use JsonSchema.Net (System.Text.Json) instead of NJsonSchema (Newtonsoft.Json)

[gregsdennis]

PR Summary

Updates the Test-Json cmdlet to use JsonSchema.Net instead of NJsonSchema in order to:

• use System.Text.Json instead of Newtonsoft
• support the latest JSON Schema drafts (up to 2020-12)

(continuation of #18023 - see here for additional comments)

PR Context

Resolves #18009

NJsonSchema only supports up to draft 7, which at this point is several years old and two versions behind. Additionally, it relies on Newtonsoft.Json.

This change is a merely drop-in replacement of the implementation that provides validation.

The cmdlet API doesn't change, however the cmdlet will no longer support draft 4 schemas. Draft 4 is a decade old at this point and the JSON Schema team (myself included) is encouraging tooling to only support draft 6/7 (6 is a subset of 7) and later. (In the future, support for these should be dropped as newer versions are released.) I'm not sure if this is considered a breaking change for this repo.

To assist users in their migration away from draft 4, the alterschema draft migration tool has been created.

I expect the existing test coverage is adequate to cover this change.

PR Checklist

• PR has a meaningful title
  • Use the present tense and imperative mood when describing your changes
• Summarized changes
• Make sure all .h, .cpp, .cs, .ps1 and .psm1 files have the correct copyright header
• This PR is ready to merge and is not Work in Progress.
  • If the PR is work in progress, please add the prefix WIP: or [ WIP ] to the beginning of the title (the WIP bot will keep its status check at Pending while the prefix is present) and remove the prefix when the PR is ready.
• Breaking changes
  • None
  • OR
  • Experimental feature(s) needed
    • Experimental feature name(s):
• User-facing changes
  • Not Applicable
  • OR
  • Documentation needed
    • Issue filed:
• Testing - New and feature
  • N/A or can only be tested interactively
  • OR
  • Make sure you've added a new test if existing tests do not effectively test the code changed
• Tooling
  • I have considered the user experience from a tooling perspective and don't believe tooling will be impacted.
  • OR
  • I have considered the user experience from a tooling perspective and opened an issue in the relevant tool repository. This may include:
    • Impact on PowerShell Editor Services which is used in the PowerShell extension for VSCode
      (which runs in a different PS Host).
      • Issue filed:
    • Impact on Completions (both in the console and in editors) - one of PowerShell's most powerful features.
      • Issue filed:
    • Impact on PSScriptAnalyzer (which provides linting & formatting in the editor extensions).
      • Issue filed:
    • Impact on EditorSyntax (which provides syntax highlighting with in VSCode, GitHub, and many other editors).
      • Issue filed:

[SteveL-MSFT]

One change requested to put error string in resx otherwise LGTM

[gregsdennis]

I'm not sure what the issue is with the various builds. I can't run the macos one, and I've never been able to get the files.wxs file regenerated right (it breaks every time I have to rebase).

As an aside, why is this file even included in the repo if it's generated at build time anyway?

[iSazonov]

@gregsdennis I can not reproduce the issue locally and I hope anybody from MSFT team will help to resolve the CI issue.

[ghost]

This pull request has been automatically marked as Review Needed because it has been there has not been any activity for 7 days.
Maintainer, please provide feedback and/or mark it as Waiting on Author

[gregsdennis]

@SteveL-MSFT I could use some help getting the wxs file fixed. It has never generated right for me. This happens every time I have to rebase.

[gregsdennis]

@SteveL-MSFT I cannot keep updating this branch because I can't generate the .wxs file. Please assist.

I'm not sure why this PR has languished this long. It seems like a straightforward change.

[gregsdennis]

Can anyone help with this? Is there any reason why it hasn't been pulled in?

[gregsdennis]

@SteveL-MSFT tagging again for an update.

[SteveL-MSFT]

@gregsdennis sorry for the delay, I'm re-reviewing it today

[daxian-dbw]

LGTM. @gregsdennis Thanks for your contribution, and I really appreciate your patience!

[iSazonov]

@gregsdennis Please look test fails.

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 212 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Large
Size       : +119 -93
Percentile : 61.2%

Total files changed: 8

Change summary by file extension:
.csproj : +1 -5
.cs : +56 -31
.resx : +5 -2
.ps1 : +47 -49
.json : +10 -6

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

• Fast and predictable releases to production:
  • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
    iterations.
  • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
• Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
  • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
  • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detected.
• Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
  • Small portions can be assimilated better.
• Better engineering practices are exercised:
  • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
  • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

• Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
  • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
  • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
• Change your engineering behaviors
  • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
    • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
    • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

• One line was added: +1 -0
• One line was deleted: +0 -1
• One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
  interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
• Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
  of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.

---

Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

[iSazonov]

@SteveL-MSFT @daxian-dbw Please update your review (large rebase was).

[daxian-dbw]

New changes after my last review looks good to me.

[iSazonov]

@gregsdennis Thanks for your contribution!

[ghost]

🎉v7.4.0-preview.4 has been released which incorporates this pull request.:tada:

Handy links:

• Release Notes