feat: add dependentSchemas keyword handler#241
Draft
vanshaj2023 wants to merge 1 commit into
Draft
Conversation
Contributor
|
Hey @vanshaj2023, since this also falls under the GSoC qualification tasks, I believe it's intended to be part of the proposal rather than a PR—as mentioned in the task description. Opening a PR at this stage might create some unnecessary overhead for the maintainers. Thanks! |
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Summary
Implements the
dependentSchemaskeyword handler inprocessAST.ts.The keyword was previously commented out, causing it to fall back to
fallbackHandlerand display a "not implemented" warning node. This PR adds a proper handler that recursively creates child nodes for each dependent subschema.The handler was designed by tracing Hyperjump's source (
lib/keywords/dependentSchemas.js) —dependentSchemascompiles viaasyncCollectArray, producing[string, string][]tuples of[propertyName, schemaUri]. The property name is used aschildId(not a numeric index likepatternProperties) so source handles are meaningful, consistent with thepropertieshandler convention.What kind of change does this PR introduce
New feature — adds a missing keyword handler
Issue Number
Closes #
Screenshots/Video
Schema used for testing:
{ "type": "object", "properties": { "name": { "type": "string" }, "credit_card": { "type": "string" } }, "dependentSchemas": { "credit_card": { "properties": { "billing_address": { "type": "string" } }, "required": ["billing_address"] } } }Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
No
If relevant, did you update the documentation?
No