[schema] change in JSON schema structure for validation purpose

[hrishin]

Is it possible to update the JSON schema structure without having any side effects.
To use kube-schema.json in F8-M-P for validation purpose (fabric8io/fabric8-maven-plugin#66), it requires following changes.

{
  id:
  $schema:
  definitions:
  .....
  resources: {
    kubernetes: {}
    openshift: {}
  }
} 

Here resources key will hold the properties respective resource like deployment for Kubernetes and deploymentconfig for OpenShift.

fabric8io/fabric8-maven-plugin#1051 (comment)

[hrishin]

After change the schema would look exactly like this.
https://gist.githubusercontent.com/hrishin/eb0a136a3516ecfd301ee3fea28b6456/raw/9179e241f383e26be537632e2876693d50c3087c/kube-schema.json

Please let me know, if its possible to accommodate this change?
@jimmidyson @jstrachan @rawlingsj @iocanel

[rawlingsj]

Is there any impact on kubernetes-client with this change?

[hrishin]

@rawlingsj I have verified kubernetes-client, f8-m-p and both are getting build with this change.

[jstrachan]

lets try it and see what breaks?

if things go bad we could always create a modified version of the schema just for fmp to do verification - but hopefully things won't come to that

[hrishin]

finger crossed

[jimmidyson]

Is resources valid for a JSON schema document type? Is this going to break any other tooling that relies on a valid JSON schema document?

[hrishin]

hey @jimmidyson that's good point. Its valid to have additional property like resources in our case as long as additionalProperties is set to true at least at root level which is there in current state. In that way if other tools honoring this property then it should not break anything.
reference

[hrishin]

hi @jimmidyson any thought about it?

[hrishin]

@jimmidyson better way lets create separate json-scehma file for validation purpose only. So existing file could stay intact.
@jstrachan WDYT?

[jstrachan]

sounds good to me