move everything out of internal #31
Conversation
This moves the schema.json out into the light and puts it with the rest of the parsing and validating code where it belongs. Since they change together and we should publish them together. I removed checkfile related things from the plugin, we can decide what to do about that. I also moved the JSON Schema checks to inside this library instead of being in the plugin. We should add more unit testing on this library to exercise and improve the JSON schema validation. We can add some light XTP plugin tests to make sure that the plugin is still working as behaving, but not going so far as to create a lot of individual test cases that couple the wasm level tests to the implementation details of things like features and error messages.
|
Note that the tests are broken because the error messages are different. but this reflects what the user will actually see. |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * Checks if the input schema has any imports |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
deciding if we need this or not
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mhmd-azeez you'd be best to say. where is this used exactly?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
as far as i can see, this is the only place that uses it:
https://github.com/dylibso/xtp/blob/main/service/api/src/routes/api/v1/extension-points/index.ts#L109
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is the only place we use this:
We can probably replace it with a call to validate_schema
| @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ | |||
| bin = "dist/plugin.wasm" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i simplified this doc
| const ajv = new Ajv(); | ||
| const validate = ajv.compile(JSON_SCHEMA); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
doing the ajv validation inside the library now
| required: | ||
| - exports | ||
| additionalProperties: false | ||
| $defs: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mhmd-azeez I've made a lot of simplifications to the json schema. I suspect we can go further but not 100% sure yet. Curious if you could take a look.
|
Still some work to do but opening up for early review. |
| @@ -95,43 +101,6 @@ test('parse-v1-document', () => { | |||
| expect(exp.output?.contentType).toBe('application/json') | |||
| }) | |||
|
|
|||
| test('parse-v1-invalid-document', () => { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As noted before, the errors are all different because of the way that json schema errors work. It's not the most pleasant experience, but this is the real one that users are having so at least we have a ground truth now. We'll need to get more granular about error testing here and we may need to rethink the strategy about the layered approach to error handling.
| description: A set of all the enemies of pac-man | ||
| enum: | ||
| - blinky | ||
| - pinky | ||
| - inky | ||
| - clyde | ||
| ComplexObject: | ||
| type: object |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you need to say the types now
| versions: | ||
| v1: | ||
| status: Draft | ||
| changes: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
TODO: come back and add latest changes here
| AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY: ${{ secrets.STATIC_S3_AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY }} | ||
| AWS_DEFAULT_REGION: us-east-2 | ||
| run: | | ||
| aws s3 cp ${{ github.workspace }}/schema.json s3://static.dylibso.com/schema.json --acl public-read |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you planning on keeping schema.yaml in the repo? if so, I don't see any script that generates schema.json from schema.yaml
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We also should publish schema-changelog.yml for future use
Move plugin and schema.json out of internal repo
This moves the schema.json out into the light and puts it with the rest of the parsing and validating code where it belongs. Since they change together and we should publish them together.
I removed checkfile related things from the plugin, we can decide whatto do about that. I also moved the JSON Schema checks to inside this library instead of being in the plugin. We should add more unit testing on this library to exercise and improve the JSON schema validation.
We can add some light XTP plugin tests to make sure that the plugin is still working as behaving, but not going so far as to create a lot of individual test cases that couple the wasm level tests to the implementation details of things like features and error messages.