fix: validate hidden fields

[danielgtaylor]

This PR fixes the validation of hidden fields so that:

1. Hidden fields are allowed in the input and treated as optional fields
2. HIdden fields, if present, are validated by whatever rules are set (e.g. min/max/len/pattern)

Fixes #516

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features

  • Introduced a hidden field to manage property visibility in JSON schema output.
  • Enhanced control over required fields by ignoring hidden properties.

• Bug Fixes

  • Updated test cases to ensure correct handling of hidden fields and their validation.

• Tests

  • Added new test cases for validating hidden fields, including scenarios for optional fields and length constraints.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The changes introduce a new boolean field, hidden, to the Schema struct, enhancing the control over the visibility of properties in JSON representations. The hidden field is utilized during schema creation and serialization, filtering out hidden properties from the JSON output. Additionally, tests have been updated to reflect these changes, ensuring proper validation of hidden fields and their handling in various scenarios.

Changes

Files	Change Summary
schema.go	Added hidden field to Schema, modified MarshalJSON, and updated schema creation functions to handle hidden properties.
schema_test.go	Altered TestSchema function to update fields and expected JSON output based on hidden property changes.
validate_test.go	Introduced new test cases for validating hidden fields, including optional and length constraint scenarios.

Assessment against linked issues

Objective	Addressed	Explanation
Hidden fields should be recognized by validation (#516)	✅
Hidden fields should not trigger validation errors	✅
Ensure hidden fields are excluded from JSON output	✅

Poem

In the meadow, schemas bloom,
Hidden fields now find their room.
With a hop and a skip, they hide,
In JSON's world, they now abide.
Validation's dance, a joyful cheer,
For every rabbit, the path is clear! 🐰✨

---

Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between be8d960 and 26483ab.

Files selected for processing (3)

• schema.go (5 hunks)
• schema_test.go (1 hunks)
• validate_test.go (1 hunks)

Additional comments not posted (10)

schema.go (5)

133-133: LGTM!

The addition of the hidden field to the Schema struct is a valid change. It will be used internally to control the visibility of properties in the JSON representation of the schema.

---

161-166: LGTM!

The addition of the contentMediaType variable and its serialization is a valid change. It includes the media type in the JSON output when the format is "binary".

---

167-179: LGTM!

The filtering of hidden properties in the MarshalJSON method is implemented correctly. It ensures that properties marked as hidden do not appear in the serialized JSON output.

---

609-611: LGTM!

The initialization of the hidden field based on the hidden struct tag is implemented correctly. It allows marking a field as hidden using the hidden:"true" tag.

---

845-849: LGTM!

Ignoring hidden fields when constructing the required fields in the schemaFromType function is a valid change. It ensures that hidden fields are not documented as required fields in the generated schema.

schema_test.go (2)

622-631: LGTM!

The modifications to the struct definition for the "field-skip" test case look good. The changes cover various scenarios for field filtering based on JSON tags, visibility, and unsupported types, which aligns with the purpose of the test case.

---

635-641: The expected JSON output matches the input struct changes.

The modifications to the expected JSON output for the "field-skip" test case accurately reflect the changes made to the input struct. The value1 field is correctly included as a required property with the appropriate type, while the filtered-out fields are omitted from the output. This ensures that the test case validates the expected behavior of field filtering.

validate_test.go (3)

1052-1058: LGTM!

The test case correctly verifies that a hidden field is treated as optional when not provided in the input.

---

1059-1065: LGTM!

The test case correctly verifies that a hidden field is validated successfully when a valid value is provided in the input.

---

1066-1073: LGTM!

The test case correctly verifies that a hidden field fails validation with the expected error message when an invalid value is provided in the input.

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  -- I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  -- Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  -- @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  -- @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  -- @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
  -- @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  -- @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  -- @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 92.78%. Comparing base (77c7a16) to head (26483ab).
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #573      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   92.76%   92.78%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          22       22              
  Lines        3883     3893      +10     
==========================================
+ Hits         3602     3612      +10     
  Misses        236      236              
  Partials       45       45              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.