feat(ibm-use-date-based-format): introduce new validation rule #706
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
The comment noted that the rule was using the resolved API definition, when it was, in fact, using the unresolved definition. This wasn't a bug - the rule doesn't look at any locations that might include references - but the documentation was wrong and misleading. This commit fixes that. Signed-off-by: Dustin Popp <[email protected]>
|
Docs are updated 👍 |
padamstx
reviewed
Dec 19, 2024
dpopp07
force-pushed
the
dp/date-time-rule
branch
from
7856f0a to
d2d9794
Compare
This commit introduces the new 'ibm-use-date-based-format' rule, which will heuristically verify that schemas, with either a name or an example value indicating a date-based logical type, be strings and use either "date" or "date-time" as the format. Signed-off-by: Dustin Popp <[email protected]>
dpopp07
force-pushed
the
dp/date-time-rule
branch
from
d2d9794 to
a6b5ee1
Compare
hudlow
requested changes
Dec 19, 2024
| * @returns an array containing the violations found or [] if no violations | ||
| */ | ||
| function checkForDateBasedFormat(s, p, apidef) { | ||
| const examples = []; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
1/3: declare array for examples at all levels of the schema hierarchy.
|
|
||
| // Either use the schema example directly or search the list of examples | ||
| // for an example object that contains a value for this property. | ||
| const exampleValue = schema.example || findExample(propertyPath, examples); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This isn't composition-aware, so it will miss examples in schemas like this:
{
"type": "string",
"allOf": [
{
"example": "2024-12-19"
}
]
}
Signed-off-by: Dustin Popp <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Dan Hudlow <[email protected]>
dpopp07
commented
Dec 20, 2024
| expect(isDateBasedName('create_date')).toBe(true); | ||
| expect(isDateBasedName('created_time')).toBe(true); | ||
| expect(isDateBasedName('created_date')).toBe(true); | ||
| expect(isDateBasedName('modify_time')).toBe(true); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Something about this (and other things like running_time for a movie, or hang_time for a football) feels like it could conceivably be a duration, which makes me reluctant to flag these for integer types. That's why I currently don't check for these. What do you think @hudlow ?
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.
PR summary
This commit introduces the new 'ibm-use-date-based-format' rule,
which will heuristically verify that schemas, with either a name
or an example value indicating a date-based logical type, be
strings and use either "date" or "date-time" as the format.
PR Checklist
General checklist
Please make sure that your PR fulfills the following requirements:
.secrets.baselinehas been updated as needednpm run generate-utilities-docshas been run if any files inpackages/utilities/srchave been updatedChecklist for adding a new validation rule: