Update JSON Schemas to Draft 7 #63583
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
ajlende
added
[Type] Enhancement
|
The following accounts have interacted with this PR and/or linked issues. I will continue to update these lists as activity occurs. You can also manually ask me to refresh this list by adding the Unlinked AccountsThe following contributors have not linked their GitHub and WordPress.org accounts: @DivyanshVinayak23. Contributors, please read how to link your accounts to ensure your work is properly credited in WordPress releases. If you're merging code through a pull request on GitHub, copy and paste the following into the bottom of the merge commit message. To understand the WordPress project's expectations around crediting contributors, please review the Contributor Attribution page in the Core Handbook. |
ajlende
removed
the
[Type] Code Quality
|
Size Change: 0 B Total Size: 1.75 MB ℹ️ View Unchanged
|
An error occurred while trying to automatically change base from
fix/json-schema-structural-issues
to
trunk
July 16, 2024 14:01
ajlende
force-pushed
the
update/json-schema-draft-07
branch
2 times, most recently
from
6825d36
to
63edffd
Compare
ajlende
force-pushed
the
update/json-schema-draft-07
branch
from
ea61881
to
2ac04ea
Compare
ajlende
force-pushed
the
update/json-schema-draft-07
branch
from
1fab073
to
2ac04ea
Compare
scruffian
approved these changes
Jul 18, 2024
|
I added a test for each of the 10 places that I manually refactored to use @scruffian is that helpful? |
ajlende
force-pushed
the
update/json-schema-draft-07
branch
from
fb81b62
to
7f1a9f1
Compare
scruffian
force-pushed
the
update/json-schema-draft-07
branch
from
7f1a9f1
to
5fce792
Compare
t-hamano
reviewed
Jul 20, 2024
| @@ -45,4 +49,13 @@ describe( 'theme.json schema', () => { | |||
|
|
|||
| expect( result ).toBe( true ); | |||
| } ); | |||
|
|
|||
| test.each( invalidFiles )( 'invalidates schema for `%s`', ( filepath ) => { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would appreciate it if you could tell me why it is necessary to validate invalid theme.json files.
Isn't it enough to simply check whether theme.json files in the Gutenberg project are valid via the validates schema for %s test? 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would appreciate it if you could tell me why it is necessary to validate invalid
theme.jsonfiles.Isn't it enough to simply check whether
theme.jsonfiles in the Gutenberg project are valid via thevalidates schema for %stest? 🤔
Good question! Testing should have a good purpose, and I don't think it always does.
In software development this kind of testing is called negative testing. It's covering failure paths to make sure that they still fail in a way that you would expect.
The theme.json schema is used by many developers, not just core. We want to ensure that invalid properties are flagged for those theme developers as they are developing their themes.
In my personal philosophy of testing, I see tests as a communication tool much like short self-contained correct "compileable" examples (SSCCEs). It can help people who are less familiar with a change understand specifically what has been changed.
The theme.json schema is a complicated schema with a lot of anyOf/allOf logic and $refs. In this update, I manually changed the way that we invalidate some of those properties by using propertyNames instead of additionalProperties, and it isn't immediately obvious where each of those changes affects validation in theme.json. It actually took me a while to trace through all the references in the schema to generate those test files.
As a bonus, tests like this can reduce the burden of manual testing by reviewers when there are a lot of cases to test. Instead of going through each case, if the test can be written simply enough, it's often easier to check the validity of a single test than many manual cases.
I've written the test cases so that they should pass for the old schemas and the new schemas. If one of the tests passed with the old schemas and failed with the new schemas, we would know that I messed something up in my refactor since these properties should be invalid in both cases.
t-hamano
approved these changes
Jul 23, 2024
priethor
added
the
Developer Experience
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?
Updates all JSON Schemas to use the Draft 7 metaschema.
Why?
Fixes #62462
Additionally, updating to using
propertyNamesuncovered some places where theadditionalPropertieshack wasn't updated properly. Those were fixed in #63582, and this change should ensure that it doesn't happen again in these places.How?
ajv-clifor initial automated migration to handleexclusiveMinimumandconstusage.propertyNameswhere appropriate.Testing Instructions
Ensure that validation is still working for all schemas.
Testing Instructions for Keyboard
N/A
Screenshots or screencast
N/A