Hyper-schema: Add "deprecated" keyword #173
Conversation
| }, | ||
| "readOnly": { | ||
| "type": "boolean" | ||
| }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should have "default": false
| "deprecated": { | ||
| "type": "boolean" | ||
| }, | ||
| "readOnly": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should have "default": false
| @@ -334,6 +334,16 @@ | |||
| </section> | |||
| </section> | |||
|
|
|||
| <section title="deprecated"> | |||
| <t> | |||
| If it has a value of boolean true, this keyword indicates that the value of the instance is deprecated, and intended for reverse compatability or internal use only, and may become missing in the future. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"value of the instance is deprecated" is strange phrasing. Usually you deprecate a field, not a field's value, or you deprecate an entire resource. So this could apply to any schema with a "self" link (which is basically what determines that the schema represents a resource), or to a field within an object schema. Or perhaps a position in a tuple schema (when "items" is an array of schemas).
There's something a bit strange there where this is either about a resource or about the context in which the schema appears (the property name or pattern, for instance).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is, isn't it, I'll fix that
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So how does this work?
In a root schema with a "self" link is means that the resource itself is deprecated? But it's still there currently?
In a root schema without a "self" link it means....?
In a property subschema (in any of the property keywords) it means that all matching properties are deprecated but will still be present?
In a schema applying to a single position in an array/tuple ("items" is an array) it means...?
In a schema applying to multiple array positions ("items" as one schema, or "additionalItems") it means...?
In the schema for "schema" or "targetSchema" it means...?
This concept is not ready for a PR. There are far too many cases that need discussing and a coherent view of hypermedia resources that need to be developed before we can just toss this in.
|
OK, so we agree the phrasing needs to be reworked and reviewed. Cool. |
|
@awwright do you plan to re-work this exact PR or can we close this, finish the discussion in the issue, and start with a new one? It's a bit confusing to me to have it open in two places, and there is a lot more context in the issue at this point. |
|
Yeah, let's re-start a discussion and close this... A lot of new ideas have
been brought up since that would be useful to start with.
On Aug 18, 2017 11:45 AM, "Henry Andrews" <[email protected]> wrote:
@awwright <https://github.com/awwright> do you plan to re-work this exact
PR or can we close this, finish the discussion in the issue, and start with
a new one? It's a bit confusing to me to have it open in two places, and
there is a lot more context in the issue at this point.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#173 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAatDX-Qm_H5wd_DkbS66jTf4xm7yDYOks5sZdu0gaJpZM4LAQ1D>
.
|
|
Closing as agreed. |
|
Just for directing people to the correct place, future deprecations conversations will be, for now, on #74. |
Language for implementing #74
Also adds meta-schema for "readOnly" that seems to have gone MIA