Skip to content

Conversation

@Taragolis
Copy link
Contributor

Our canary build/test failed on validation date-time param, the reason new version of openapi-schema-validator now use rfc3339-validator, and this change behaviour for jsonschema validation.

332c332
< openapi-schema-validator==0.4.2
---
> openapi-schema-validator==0.4.3
439a440
> rfc3339-validator==0.1.4

List of changes applied by this PR:

  1. Bump version of jsonschema to 4+, in this version jsonschema drop support strict-rfc3339 and only use rfc3339-validator if it installed. This mostly for avoid to use another rfc3339 validation method.
  2. Make rfc3339-validator as core dependency
  3. Convert valid ISO8601 values to RFC3339
  4. Change example_params_ui_tutorial DAG's parameters to RFC3339

@Taragolis
Copy link
Contributor Author

One part fixed another part broken, classic. I will have a look later in a day what can I do with REST API

potiuk and others added 2 commits February 7, 2023 11:58
The open-api-schema-validator 0.4.3 made RFC3339 validation of
the date-time fields mandatory and this revealed problems in our
test URLs - the '+' was not url-encoded and it was replaced with
space - thus the dates passed were not valid RFC3339 date-time
specifications.

This however revealed one more problem. The RFC3339-validator package
is automatically installed by the open-api-schema-validator, but when
installed, it also adds validation to date-time fields validated by
the Params of ours - for example naive date-time parameters are not
supported any more (but they were in the past).

This might introduce breaking changes for users who use non-valid
date-time parameters - however we should consider that as a bugfix,
and accidental support, because the date-time schema should expect
RFC3999-formatted date time.
and make valid iso8601 as compatible deprecated format
@Taragolis Taragolis force-pushed the param-rfc3339-datetime branch from 842b4e7 to 51594ba Compare February 7, 2023 07:58
@Taragolis
Copy link
Contributor Author

closed in favor of #29395

@Taragolis Taragolis closed this Feb 7, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants