Remove boolean form of exclusive* keywords. #210
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
epoberezkin
approved these changes
Dec 28, 2016
|
@handrews I think I'd rather make separate PR for all dependencies (exclusiveMaximum and additionalItems). This can be merged as is I think, I've approved. |
|
Thanks, @epoberezkin ! @awwright @Relequestual , over to you for final approval. |
|
This looks fine, as long as it's clear that implementations are still allowed to implement a superset of functionality (particularly, despite saying "MUST be a number") |
|
@awwright how can we stop them :) |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Yet another alternative to #185 and #189. This just drops the boolean keywords and does the minimal changes necessary to implement that.
@epoberezkin, if you want to make it impossible for both
minimumandexclusiveMinimumto appear together (and likewise formaximumandexclusiveMaximum) could you please file that as a separate issue like you did with theitemsandadditionalItemsdependencies? All of those cases are ones that work without the dependencies but could be more helpful with, so let's discuss that whole concept on its own. Maybe even just broaden #209 to cover all of these meta-schema dependency questions? Then we could sort it all out at once and if it gets sorted before this gets merged (if it ever does) I will update this patch accordingly.