Support jsonschema>=3.0 #202
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
|
Tagging @justinsalamon for a CR request -- nothing major here, everything passes and works as expected. |
|
For the record, this fix also seems to run just fine on jsonschema 2.6, so we don't lose any backward compatibility. It does bump the dependency version, so that shouldn't be a problem, but it's good to know. |
|
tagging @beasteers for opinions |
beasteers
approved these changes
Aug 13, 2019
Yup, that's correct. The jams schema was written with draft4 (it even says so explicitly), so here we're just making sure that the right validator is being used. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR updates the jsonschema dependency to support >= 3.0, and fixes #193 .
The fix involves forcing the validator to use draft-04, which is now out of date. But this stop-gap solution works for now.
We should have a separate issue, tied to #92 , which could involve updating the schema definition itself to draft 7. There appear to be some good technical reasons for doing so (namely: relative uri references), but we can punt that down the road for now.