feat: Use latest ajv #166
feat: Use latest ajv #166
Conversation
| "contains": { | ||
| "const": "https://stac.linz.govt.nz/_STAC_VERSION_/film/schema.json" | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "type": "array", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why does 'array' need to be specified for each item?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The docs clarify this:
This is a very common mistake that even people experienced with JSON Schema often make - the problem here is that any value that is not an [array] would be valid against this schema - this is rarely intentional.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In fact, looking at the output there are a bunch more of these. I'll do those as well, but I've put those in a separate PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure i follow the docs here, do you have an example of what would be valid that shouldn't be valid?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can't seem to create a test which makes the fixes necessary, so it's possible ajv is just being overzealous. There are a few issues related to how strictTypes works, but I couldn't see one which is strictly equivalent to not being useful. I guess this would just be a "better safe than sorry" change, which we can refine if/when ajv refines their validation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder why its a lint issue then 🤷 ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because, in general, if you don't specify the type any type is valid. If you happen to have a sufficiently loose child schema this might result in weird stuff like making a null valid in place of an object.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In any case, this discussion is now relevant for the other PR. What do you think of the current PR?
l0b0
force-pushed
the
feat/use-latest-ajv
branch
from
4b2dc2a to
25f0c77
Compare
l0b0
force-pushed
the
feat/use-latest-ajv
branch
from
4352e49 to
6a0f934
Compare
No description provided.