-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Tests: validation against metaschema #513
Comments
@rhiaro - is this an issue for the future? It seems like something where a 'wait and see' policy could be enough for now. |
FYI, OCDS creates custom metaschema here (for Draft 4, but hopefully similar for newer JSON Schema versions): https://github.com/open-contracting/standard-maintenance-scripts/blob/bec9acc09c1e5f1ca84b420ab8bbcf8a5cbed79d/tests/test_json.py#L247 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The additional properties added to the metaschema are
codelist
,openCodelist
,version
andpropertyOrder
. Onlyversion
can be validated because it sits at the top level - for any nested properties, the validator ignores our metaschema and defers back to the 2020-12 metaschema.To fix this, I think we need to also redefine
$ref
in our metaschema, or possibly use the workaround for the jsonschema library in python-jsonschema/jsonschema#994 (comment).See also: python-jsonschema/jsonschema#1061
Maybe an alternative fix would be to turn the BODS metaschema into a vocabulary but I can't see that the python-jsonschema library supports this yet.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: