clarify that type must be a non-empty array
#1560
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jviotti
approved these changes
Nov 13, 2024
jdesrosiers
approved these changes
Nov 13, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm a little reluctant to approve a breaking change without documented consensus and an ADR, but I think it's ok in this case because the support for type with an empty array was never reliable because the meta-schema has included "minItems": 1 since at least draft-04 (I didn't bother looking further back). That means that implementations that use the meta-schema to validate schemas (probably most of them) have been rejecting type with an empty array.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
clarification
Issue & Discussion References
Summary
Clarifies that
typeas an array must be non-empty.Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
Technically yes? @awwright did point out that there is a niche use case as an alternative to
{not:{}}, but the keyword certainly wasn't intended to be used this way. Also, given that we present{not:{}}as the analog tofalse, it's extremely unlikely that anyone will be using it this way on purpose.