-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 280
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
Clarification on Reference/Schema #552
Comments
Hey @char0n, sounds awesome 👍 Feel free to join our Slack, we love to hear about the tooling you are making 😄
Yes, that is correct.
I think this is incorrect, if I understand your point of view correctly.
Let me know if the resource does not answer your question 🙂
Feel free to create a separate issue for this, it is a great suggestion 👍 |
Hi @jonaslagoni,
That's exactly my point and my un-clarity within specification. AsyncApi 2.0.0 claims:
If resolution complies with JSON Reference spec, and JSON Schema specification should be disregarded, the only logical conclusion I see is that |
@char0n after reading up on a couple of different things, you are correct in your assumption |
@jonaslagoni cool, thank you for your clarifications and time! |
Hi everybody,
I'm working on AsyncApi 2.0.0 tooling and I'm seeking a verification of my understanding of the spec regarding Reference/Schema Objects.
Let's say I have following Schema Object definition somewhere inside AsyncApi 2.0.0 document.
Semantics of this fragments are going to be following:
When constructing semantics I've used the following sentence from the spec:
I understand it in the sense that whenever the
SchemaObject
is intercepted and that SchemaObject only contains$ref
propertly, it is understood asReferenceObject
. JSON Reference spec is applied for dereferencing the Reference Objects. This also effectively means that$id
onSchemaObject
can be defined, but virtually have no semantics and is not used for dereferencing at all.Am I correct in my understanding and assumptions?
Thanks a lot!
PS: just a suggestion, maybe enabling Discussions on this repo would be beneficial so that questions are directed there.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: