On 15/12/2023 19:39, Robin Murphy wrote: >>> +required: >>> + - compatible >>> + - reg >>> + >>> +additionalProperties: false >> >> Why no example to validate the binding? > > IMO for such a trivial binding built out of common properties, an > equally trivial example isn't going to add any value, since it won't do > anything more than re-state the individual property definitions above. > In bindings where we have conditional relationships between properties, > or complex encodings where a practical example can help explain a > definition (e.g. a map/mask pair for a set of input values), then > absolutely, an example can add something more to help the author and/or > users. But otherwise, the thing I've really grown to like about schema > is how thoroughly self-describing the definitions themselves can now be. The example is used to validate the schema. Best regards, Krzysztof
