Allow manually setting a JSON Schema URL

[smoya]

Reason/Context

Current Studio picks up a JSON Schema from https://github.com/asyncapi/spec-json-schemas based on the asyncapi field.
This is valid for most of the users but I wonder if we could allow users to manually enter a URL of a valid JSON Schema (AsyncAPI one) so it can be used for validating.

The reason is that I find it useful for testing changes on the spec that are not yet fully merged.
I know the use case is very limited, but wondering if we could easily do that.

Description

Allow setting an external JSON Schema URL so it can be used for validating the document. It doesn't have to be in the UI, maybe a query parameter such as ?schema=<url> would be enough.

[magicmatatjahu]

Do you wanna validate on different schema by parserJS? Currently parserJS has hardcoded versions of specs and you cannot pass new schema as input to the parser.

[smoya]

Do you wanna validate on different schema by parserJS? Currently parserJS has hardcoded versions of specs and you cannot pass new schema as input to the parser.

I know you load schemas at boot time, but I guess you can also add more schemas to the registry during runtime.

[magicmatatjahu]

🤔 We can add new schema to the global object from @asyncapi/specs. I will think about it.

[github-actions]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity 😴

It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation.

There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model.

Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here.

Thank you for your patience ❤️

[smoya]

@magicmatatjahu What do you think about this one? I think it is valid? If you do as well, please remove the stale label 🙇

[magicmatatjahu]

I think it's still relevant :)

[smoya]

I think it's still relevant :)

In fact, I wanted to use Studio during the prerelease of AsyncAPI 2.4.0 to test such a new version and missed this feature.

[github-actions]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity 😴

It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation.

There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model.

Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here.

Thank you for your patience ❤️

[smoya]

Still relevant

[derberg]

this first has to be supported by the parser, no?

[magicmatatjahu]

@derberg More specifically by Spectral. We can always override some rules from official Spectral's AsyncAPI ruleset in our Parser, it's not a problem.

[github-actions]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity 😴

It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation.

There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model.

Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here.

Thank you for your patience ❤️

[smoya]

Still relevant

[github-actions]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity 😴

It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation.

There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model.

Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here.

Thank you for your patience ❤️