-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 348
Remove boolean form of exclusive* keywords. #210
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
@handrews I think I'd rather make separate PR for all dependencies (exclusiveMaximum and additionalItems). This can be merged as is I think, I've approved.
Thanks, @epoberezkin !
@awwright @Relequestual , over to you for final approval.
This looks fine, as long as it's clear that implementations are still allowed to implement a superset of functionality (particularly, despite saying "MUST be a number")
@awwright how can we stop them :)
Some still support required: true form from draft 3...
Yet another alternative to #185 and #189. This just drops the boolean keywords and does the minimal changes necessary to implement that.
@epoberezkin, if you want to make it impossible for both
minimumandexclusiveMinimumto appear together (and likewise formaximumandexclusiveMaximum) could you please file that as a separate issue like you did with theitemsandadditionalItemsdependencies? All of those cases are ones that work without the dependencies but could be more helpful with, so let's discuss that whole concept on its own. Maybe even just broaden #209 to cover all of these meta-schema dependency questions? Then we could sort it all out at once and if it gets sorted before this gets merged (if it ever does) I will update this patch accordingly.