On 2019.06.14 11:59, Jeff Hostetler wrote:
>
>
> On 6/11/2019 7:31 PM, Josh Steadmon wrote:
> > Define a JSON schema[1] that can be used to validate trace2 event
> > objects. This can be used to add regression tests to verify that the
> > event output format does not change unexpectedly.
> >
> > Two versions of the schema are provided:
> > * event_schema.json is more permissive. It verifies that all expected
> > fields are present in each trace event, but it allows traces to have
> > unexpected additional fields. This allows the schema to be specified
> > more concisely by factoring out the common fields into a reusable
> > sub-schema.
> > * strict_schema.json is more restrictive. It verifies that all expected
> > fields are present and no unexpected fields are present in each trace
> > event. Due to this additional restriction, the common fields cannot be
> > factored out into a re-usable subschema (at least as-of draft-07) [2],
> > and must be repeated for each event definition.
> >
> [...]
> > +
> > + "data-json_event": {
> > + "allOf": [
> > + { "$ref": "#/definitions/event_common_fields" },
> > + {
> > + "properties": {
> > + "event": { "const": "data-json" },
> > + "repo": { "type": "integer" },
> > + "t_abs": { "type": "number" },
> > + "t_rel": { "type": "number" },
> > + "nesting": { "type": "integer" },
> > + "category": { "type": "string" },
> > + "key": { "type": "string" },
> > + "value": true
> > + },
> > + "required": [
> > + "event", "t_abs", "t_rel", "nesting", "category", "key",
> > + "value"
> > + ]
> > + }
> > + ]
> > + }
> > + },
> [...]
>
> Here you have "value" as just a boolean rather than a sub-object.
> Is that a limitation of the schema tools? I guess this is reasonable
> since the contents of the sub-object are variable and you wouldn't be
> able to verify it anyway.
Yeah, I just listed it as "true" (which in JSON-Schema means that a value is
expected but we're not making any restrictions on what it looks like) because of
not being able to verify the contents of the sub-object. But we should actually
at least verify that it's an object versus some other type, so I'll fix that if
there's enough interest for a v2 of this series.
