Fix Container recursion into additionalProperties
#90
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
Signed-off-by: clux <sszynrae@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: clux <sszynrae@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: clux <sszynrae@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: clux <sszynrae@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: clux <sszynrae@gmail.com>
clux
changed the title
Container recursion into additionalProperties
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #84.
This factors out the part of the recursion that identifies members and starts the recursion again with those members.
This is needed because there are really two ways we can dig into properties:
We already have known its
properties XOR additionalProperties, but we only correctly did the recursion of that for the members, not for further structs. This meant that complicated schemas with structs nested within additionalProperties were never fully populated (although their members might have been referenced correctly).