-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 345
Hyper-schema: Add "deprecated" keyword #173
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think this is ready for Draft 06. There are some subtleties that need to be discussed here and we need some clarity on the difference between resources and fields.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should have "default": false
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should have "default": false
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"value of the instance is deprecated" is strange phrasing. Usually you deprecate a field, not a field's value, or you deprecate an entire resource. So this could apply to any schema with a "self" link (which is basically what determines that the schema represents a resource), or to a field within an object schema. Or perhaps a position in a tuple schema (when "items" is an array of schemas).
There's something a bit strange there where this is either about a resource or about the context in which the schema appears (the property name or pattern, for instance).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It is, isn't it, I'll fix that
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So how does this work?
In a root schema with a "self" link is means that the resource itself is deprecated? But it's still there currently?
In a root schema without a "self" link it means....?
In a property subschema (in any of the property keywords) it means that all matching properties are deprecated but will still be present?
In a schema applying to a single position in an array/tuple ("items" is an array) it means...?
In a schema applying to multiple array positions ("items" as one schema, or "additionalItems") it means...?
In the schema for "schema" or "targetSchema" it means...?
This concept is not ready for a PR. There are far too many cases that need discussing and a coherent view of hypermedia resources that need to be developed before we can just toss this in.
OK, so we agree the phrasing needs to be reworked and reviewed. Cool.
(Maybe I'll add those new labels soon... very soon... )
@awwright do you plan to re-work this exact PR or can we close this, finish the discussion in the issue, and start with a new one? It's a bit confusing to me to have it open in two places, and there is a lot more context in the issue at this point.
Closing as agreed.
Just for directing people to the correct place, future deprecations conversations will be, for now, on #74.
Language for implementing #74
Also adds meta-schema for "readOnly" that seems to have gone MIA