feat: new script and ci for JSON Schema validation #452

AnimeshKumar923 · 2023-11-21T18:36:15Z

Description

This PR introduces a new workflow that checks and validates any incoming changes in the schemas present inside the schemas directory.
~~It also introduces a JavaScript linter.~~ (will be implemented through Add code linting (eslint) as part of CI script #467)

Tasks

Create a JSON schema validation script. (this is the script)
~~Integrate JavaScript linter. (ESLint?) Change the existing if-nodejs-pr-testing.yml to lint JavaScript files.~~ (Will be converted into a new issue in the future. UPDATE: the issue has been raised Add code linting (eslint) as part of CI script #467 )
~~Change the existing if-nodejs-pr-testing.yml to validate incoming schemas. (implemented here)~~ Instead, do changes in test field of the script and include execution of the script from there itself (implemented here)

Related issue(s)
Fixes #436

Changes: - added schema validation script - update package.json to match current dependencies

Changes: - Changed code to previous version for a re-attempt for building the solution. - Will start from a fresh approach.

Changes: - code updated to TS and is giving the desired output when run through ts-node. - output is: `error: reference "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema" resolves to more than one schema` - tsconfig.json is added because it's required when we run ts-node and execute the script. -ts-node can be installed in the CI at the runtime.

Changes: - modify code with help of Sergio Moya (thank you!) - added test cases of Schema by Sergio - convert from TypeScript to JavaScript

Changes: - categorize file into draft-04 and draft-07 for ease of differentiation. - Code updated to run successfully for the draft-07 files.

This reverts commit 60436bc.

This reverts commit 297480d.

Changes: - categorize file into draft-04 and draft-07 for ease of differentiation. - code updated to run successfully for the draft-07 files. - update package.json

Changes: - updated the dependencies - rename config.json file - separete the validate-schema file into two versions

Changes: - created new `filter-file` script for filtering the files which has draft-04 and draft-07, and to process them separately - updated code, removed irrelevant comments

Changes: - updated `validate-schemas-final.js` to match the `filter-file.js` - `filter-file.js` contains the most accurate code as of now

github-actions

Welcome to AsyncAPI. Thanks a lot for creating your first pull request. Please check out our contributors guide useful for opening a pull request.
Keep in mind there are also other channels you can use to interact with AsyncAPI community. For more details check out this issue.

Changes: - update workflow to run JSON Schema validator - update `package.json` to include the validator - update directory path to run script from root of the project

AnimeshKumar923 · 2023-11-21T19:42:59Z

@smoya

I've made the script a bit more exclusive for the draft-04 files. Made two functions, one for the draft-04 files and other for draft-07 ones assuming that in future, incoming file changes will be using draft-07 or more latest ones.
Updated the workflow to include lint and lint-schemas steps.
Update package.json dependencies and scripts section to include lint and lint-schemas commands.

I'm using ESLint for the linting of all the JavaScript files. I've seen this being implemented in the website repository. Is it okay here?

Please have a look and provide your feedback on this. Thank you. 🙏

scripts/validate-schemas-final.js

smoya

I'm so happy to see how close we are of having validation of our JSON Schema files in CI!

You did a really great job here 👏 👏 .

I wrote some comments, suggestions, and other things that I believe we must fix. Feel free to ask any question.

package.json

scripts/validate-schemas-final.js

package-lock.json

.eslintrc.json

.github/workflows/if-nodejs-pr-testing.yml

package.json

smoya · 2023-12-11T12:20:45Z

@AnimeshKumar923 there is one code smell SonarCloud complains https://sonarcloud.io/project/issues?resolved=false&types=CODE_SMELL&pullRequest=452&id=asyncapi_asyncapi-node&open=AYwW7h_-2LUoXdDhnTTh.

It is about simplifying the code basically. I agree, it can be simplified and improved and I invite you to do it, but I would say this can be done in a separate PR. To be honest, I find this code to be readable and simple enough at this stage IMHO. I would say you can create a follow up issue in order to simplify that.

Regarding linting, and as we do not have a linter in place, I won't required you to pass any linting. Instead, we will fix those once #467 is done.

smoya · 2023-12-11T12:30:50Z

@derberg ping 🙌

derberg

you cannot modify .github/workflows/if-nodejs-pr-testing.yml as it comes from .github and whatever you modify now can be overwritten later

better just modify test script in package.json and make it fun the validate-schemas script, so instead of "test": "npm run build && nyc mocha", do "test": "npm run build && nyc mocha && npm run validate-schemas",. This way you do not have to modify .github/workflows/if-nodejs-pr-testing.yml

last but not least, please do not introduce scripts names with - as we follow approach with :. So instead of validate-schemas better make validate:schemas

also did you check if you have proper error handling in script that will fail GitHub action in case of validation fails? so we know that it actually gets red when error happens? I see you have one try/catch that is just doing console.error and it will for sure not terminate script exacution

AnimeshKumar923 · 2023-12-11T12:39:54Z

@AnimeshKumar923 there is one code smell SonarCloud complains https://sonarcloud.io/project/issues?resolved=false&types=CODE_SMELL&pullRequest=452&id=asyncapi_asyncapi-node&open=AYwW7h_-2LUoXdDhnTTh.

It is about simplifying the code basically. I agree, it can be simplified and improved and I invite you to do it, but I would say this can be done in a separate PR.

It's a new thing for me (the code smell part), still learning from it.

To be honest, I find this code to be readable and simple enough at this stage IMHO.

Okay, I see

I would say you can create a follow up issue in order to simplify that.

Yes, I agree. For the code optimization, I would like to do it in a new issue and it might take some time as per my current knowledge about JavaScript and programming in general. 😅

Regarding linting, and as we do not have a linter in place, I won't required you to pass any linting. Instead, we will fix those once #467 is done.

Understood.

AnimeshKumar923 · 2023-12-11T12:42:44Z

Hi @derberg! 👋

Thank you for your detailed review. I'll definitely look into the things you mentioned. 👍

Changes: - Revert 'if-nodejs-pr-testing.yml' to original condition. - Update 'package.json', changed "test" field to include the JSON Schema validation. - Change naming convention, from 'validate-schema' to 'validate:schema'. - Modify error handling 'catch' block on line 79 to terminate script if the schema is not valid. - Applied suggestion from: asyncapi#452 (review)

AnimeshKumar923 · 2023-12-12T10:46:37Z

Hey @smoya @derberg 👋

Please have a look at the files now. I've made changes suggested here through aeada06

derberg · 2023-12-12T13:31:11Z

lgtm, I see also that validation runs: https://github.com/asyncapi/spec-json-schemas/actions/runs/7180191694/job/19557877973?pr=452

did you at some point of time try to simulate an error to see if test will fail?

AnimeshKumar923 · 2023-12-12T14:52:53Z

lgtm, I see also that validation runs: https://github.com/asyncapi/spec-json-schemas/actions/runs/7180191694/job/19557877973?pr=452

did you at some point of time try to simulate an error to see if test will fail?

@derberg Yes. I created a dummy 0.0.0.json and tested it.

Contents of 0.0.0.json 👇 (thanks goes to Sergio for providing this template for testing!)

{
"$id":"http://foo.bar",
"$schema":"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema",
    "definitions":{
        "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema":{},
        "person":{
            "type":"object",
            "properties":{
                "name":{
                    "type":"invalid"
                }
            }
        }
    }
}

These are the results after running node scripts/validate-schemas.js 👇

1.0.0-without-$id.json: JSON Schema is valid!

1.0.0.json: JSON Schema is valid!

1.1.0-without-$id.json: JSON Schema is valid!

1.1.0.json: JSON Schema is valid!

1.2.0-without-$id.json: JSON Schema is valid!

1.2.0.json: JSON Schema is valid!

2.0.0-rc2-without-$id.json: JSON Schema is valid!

2.0.0-rc2.json: JSON Schema is valid!

2.0.0-without-$id.json: JSON Schema is valid!

2.0.0.json: JSON Schema is valid!

2.1.0-without-$id.json: JSON Schema is valid!

2.1.0.json: JSON Schema is valid!

2.2.0-without-$id.json: JSON Schema is valid!

2.2.0.json: JSON Schema is valid!

2.3.0-without-$id.json: JSON Schema is valid!

2.3.0.json: JSON Schema is valid!

2.4.0-without-$id.json: JSON Schema is valid!

2.4.0.json: JSON Schema is valid!

2.5.0-without-$id.json: JSON Schema is valid!

2.5.0.json: JSON Schema is valid!

2.6.0-without-$id.json: JSON Schema is valid!

2.6.0.json: JSON Schema is valid!

3.0.0-without-$id.json: JSON Schema is valid!

3.0.0.json: JSON Schema is valid!

all.schema-store.json: JSON Schema is valid!

0.0.0.json: JSON Schema is not valid: [
  {
    instancePath: '/definitions/person/properties/name/type',
    schemaPath: '#/definitions/simpleTypes/enum',
    keyword: 'enum',
    params: { allowedValues: [Array] },
    message: 'must be equal to one of the allowed values'
  },
  {
    instancePath: '/definitions/person/properties/name/type',
    schemaPath: '#/properties/type/anyOf/1/type',
    keyword: 'type',
    params: { type: 'array' },
    message: 'must be array'
  },
  {
    instancePath: '/definitions/person/properties/name/type',
    schemaPath: '#/properties/type/anyOf',
    keyword: 'anyOf',
    params: {},
    message: 'must match a schema in anyOf'
  }
]

and when executed echo $?, it resulted in 1.

Do we have any ways of testing this dummy in the PR itself for better assurance? 👀

sonarqubecloud · 2023-12-13T09:34:06Z

Quality Gate passed

The SonarCloud Quality Gate passed, but some issues were introduced.

1 New issue
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

derberg

@AnimeshKumar923 this PR is already running your test script 😄

@smoya LGTM so if it comes to me, we can merge

smoya · 2023-12-13T09:36:04Z

/rtm

AnimeshKumar923 · 2023-12-13T09:46:34Z

@smoya Thank you so much for your guidance throughout this PR! I'm very happy how it turned out in the end. 🙇 🚀 🥳
Also, let me see what can I do about the code smell in a new issue 😅

@derberg Thank you for your in-depth review. It was very crucial for this PR. 🙇 👍

Looking forward to do more contributions here.

Cheers! 🥂

asyncapi-bot · 2023-12-13T10:57:32Z

🎉 This PR is included in version 6.2.0 🎉

The release is available on:

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

aeworxet · 2023-12-19T21:30:04Z

@asyncapi/bounty_team

AnimeshKumar923 added 16 commits November 11, 2023 02:04

feat: add schema validation script

45435f9

Changes: - added schema validation script - update package.json to match current dependencies

fix: improve code, add more outputs

713792d

fix: improve code, remove comments

5471112

fix: code change to previous version

87c8218

Changes: - Changed code to previous version for a re-attempt for building the solution. - Will start from a fresh approach.

fix: convert code from JS to TS

420c7bc

fix: update code, add testing data

297480d

Changes: - modify code with help of Sergio Moya (thank you!) - added test cases of Schema by Sergio - convert from TypeScript to JavaScript

arrange files, update code

60436bc

Changes: - categorize file into draft-04 and draft-07 for ease of differentiation. - Code updated to run successfully for the draft-07 files.

Revert "arrange files, update code"

f73101e

This reverts commit 60436bc.

Revert "fix: update code, add testing data"

d06a479

This reverts commit 297480d.

arrange files, update code

5d26cb2

Changes: - categorize file into draft-04 and draft-07 for ease of differentiation. - code updated to run successfully for the draft-07 files. - update package.json

update code, update config file

e464858

chore: re-organise file, update script

afa9db2

chore: rename files, update dependencies

d584bb0

Changes: - updated the dependencies - rename config.json file - separete the validate-schema file into two versions

add new script, update code

196c6ab

Changes: - created new `filter-file` script for filtering the files which has draft-04 and draft-07, and to process them separately - updated code, removed irrelevant comments

update script

944a58a

Changes: - updated `validate-schemas-final.js` to match the `filter-file.js` - `filter-file.js` contains the most accurate code as of now

AnimeshKumar923 requested review from fmvilas, derberg, dalelane, smoya, char0n and asyncapi-bot-eve as code owners November 21, 2023 18:36

github-actions bot reviewed Nov 21, 2023

View reviewed changes

AnimeshKumar923 added 3 commits November 22, 2023 00:08

update dependencies

02412d2

remove test files

9eadb79

update workflow, update dependencies,update script

8da18f3

Changes: - update workflow to run JSON Schema validator - update `package.json` to include the validator - update directory path to run script from root of the project

Merge branch 'master' into json-schema-validation

ba6fab7

char0n reviewed Nov 22, 2023

View reviewed changes

scripts/validate-schemas-final.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

smoya requested changes Nov 22, 2023

View reviewed changes

smoya previously approved these changes Dec 11, 2023

View reviewed changes

smoya mentioned this pull request Dec 11, 2023

Add code linting (eslint) as part of CI script #467

Closed

4 tasks

derberg reviewed Dec 11, 2023

View reviewed changes

AnimeshKumar923 mentioned this pull request Dec 11, 2023

[CI] Lint and validate JSON Schema docs #436

Closed

2 tasks

AnimeshKumar923 dismissed smoya’s stale review via aeada06 December 12, 2023 10:33

AnimeshKumar923 requested review from smoya and derberg December 12, 2023 10:36

Merge branch 'master' into json-schema-validation

96f0178

derberg approved these changes Dec 13, 2023

View reviewed changes

smoya approved these changes Dec 13, 2023

View reviewed changes

asyncapi-bot added the ready-to-merge label Dec 13, 2023

asyncapi-bot merged commit 3768128 into asyncapi:master Dec 13, 2023
10 checks passed

asyncapi-bot added released and removed ready-to-merge labels Dec 13, 2023

AnimeshKumar923 mentioned this pull request Jan 10, 2024

Reduce cognitive complexity in validate-schemas.js #482

Closed

AnimeshKumar923 mentioned this pull request Mar 6, 2024

Add a script and CI job to validate spec examples asyncapi/spec#957

Closed

asyncapi-bot added the bounty AsyncAPI Bounty program related label label Aug 21, 2024

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

feat: new script and ci for JSON Schema validation #452

feat: new script and ci for JSON Schema validation #452

AnimeshKumar923 commented Nov 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot left a comment

AnimeshKumar923 commented Nov 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading

smoya left a comment

smoya commented Dec 11, 2023

smoya commented Dec 11, 2023

derberg left a comment

AnimeshKumar923 commented Dec 11, 2023

AnimeshKumar923 commented Dec 11, 2023

AnimeshKumar923 commented Dec 12, 2023

derberg commented Dec 12, 2023

AnimeshKumar923 commented Dec 12, 2023

sonarqubecloud bot commented Dec 13, 2023

derberg left a comment

smoya commented Dec 13, 2023

AnimeshKumar923 commented Dec 13, 2023

asyncapi-bot commented Dec 13, 2023

aeworxet commented Dec 19, 2023

feat: new script and ci for JSON Schema validation #452

feat: new script and ci for JSON Schema validation #452

Conversation

AnimeshKumar923 commented Nov 21, 2023 • edited Loading

github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AnimeshKumar923 commented Nov 21, 2023 • edited Loading

smoya left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

smoya commented Dec 11, 2023

smoya commented Dec 11, 2023

derberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

AnimeshKumar923 commented Dec 11, 2023

AnimeshKumar923 commented Dec 11, 2023

AnimeshKumar923 commented Dec 12, 2023

derberg commented Dec 12, 2023

AnimeshKumar923 commented Dec 12, 2023

sonarqubecloud bot commented Dec 13, 2023

Quality Gate passed

derberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

smoya commented Dec 13, 2023

AnimeshKumar923 commented Dec 13, 2023

asyncapi-bot commented Dec 13, 2023

aeworxet commented Dec 19, 2023

AnimeshKumar923 commented Nov 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading

AnimeshKumar923 commented Nov 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading