Skip to content
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

Merged
merged 10 commits into from
Sep 23, 2024
Merged

JSON schemas #42

merged 10 commits into from
Sep 23, 2024

Conversation

jslane-h
Copy link
Collaborator

  • Added schemas for library items, verification cases, and workflows. Done manually and no descriptions yet
  • Added tests for these schemas

@jslane-h jslane-h requested a review from lymereJ May 30, 2024 20:09
@jslane-h jslane-h self-assigned this May 30, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@lymereJ lymereJ left a 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.

"library_item_id": {
"type": "integer",
"minimum": 1,
"maximum": 67
Copy link
Collaborator

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?

Copy link
Collaborator

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.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

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"
Copy link
Collaborator

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 @@
{
Copy link
Collaborator

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?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

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 @@
{
Copy link
Collaborator

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.

Comment on lines 47 to 51
"expected_result": {
"enum": [
"pass",
"fail"
]
Copy link
Collaborator

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": {
Copy link
Collaborator

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?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

@lymereJ lymereJ requested a review from leijerry888 June 20, 2024 05:30
Copy link
Collaborator

@leijerry888 leijerry888 left a 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

@leijerry888 leijerry888 merged commit 0c00d86 into develop Sep 23, 2024
3 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants