-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
JSON schemas #42
JSON schemas #42
Conversation
jslane-h
commented
May 30, 2024
- Added schemas for library items, verification cases, and workflows. Done manually and no descriptions yet
- Added tests for these schemas
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good! Just a few comments.
schema/library.schema.json
Outdated
"library_item_id": { | ||
"type": "integer", | ||
"minimum": 1, | ||
"maximum": 67 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that we might not want a maximum for now. @leijerry888, what do you think about it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that we might not want a maximum for now. @leijerry888, what do you think about it?
That's correct. We do not want a maximum.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Updated
"description_verification_type": { | ||
"enum": [ | ||
"rule-based", | ||
"procedure-based" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm fine with just these for now since that we don't have any ml-based
one yet. But we might want to add it eventually.
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ | |||
{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Aren't we missing description_assertions
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's right. Just added that
@@ -0,0 +1,1062 @@ | |||
{ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think that we might want to change the name of that file to something more generic such as verification_cases.schema.json
, I always though that the new_library_
prefix was a bit confusing since it's not the same thing at all as the library.json
file.
"expected_result": { | ||
"enum": [ | ||
"pass", | ||
"fail" | ||
] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@leijerry888 - Could we get rid of these here and in general in all verification case files since they're already in the library?
"cases" | ||
], | ||
"additionalProperties": false, | ||
"$defs": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would it make sense to move these to individual files for easier maintenance/expansion?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I could see that being helpful. I think the one downside is that it makes validation a little more complex since you have to introduce a registry and (iirc) $id's. Similarly, splitting "States", "Meta", and "Imports" could be beneficial for the GUI
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
reverse merge failure cause resolved, ready for merge