-
-
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
ci: script to validate embedded examples in the asyncapi.md file #1059
ci: script to validate embedded examples in the asyncapi.md file #1059
Conversation
Changes: - copied files from test branch: https://github.com/AnimeshKumar923/asyncapi-spec/tree/embedded-examples-jsonPath-test/scripts/validation - copied because merge conflict and older files in the previous branch - files required for validation of embedded examples - still a WIP, more modification and refinement will be made in future
mistakenly added this file
Changes: - added comments in the file as suggested by Sergio here: asyncapi#957 (comment) - more comments to be adjusted according to the json format
Current State of the scriptThis is what the script currently does as of 915f808:
Future objective: |
Changes: - modified the script so that it can handle component object example - the script as of now add the fields and sub-fields in the updated-doc so that the other references remain unaffected - the earlier version was removinga and adding the whole part of the document altogether which affected the references and dependencies in the entire document
@asyncapi/bounty_team |
Changes: - updated the spec file to correctly match the json format and for further parsing - updated the base document to support more of the examples - added missing json version for some of the examples
Changes: - removed the examples added through 4529772 - applied suggestion from: asyncapi#1059 (comment)
/au |
Changes: - created new base doc removing additional fields under 'securitySchemes'. This is because we have to individuallly validate each examples under the Security Scheme Object. The additional fields were giving error during validation of those examples. - changes the object's name from `test` to `name`. - updated the script according to the changed object's name
Changes: - update script to determine the base doc, whether the 'server scheme object' is present or not - updated both the base docs with more missing fields
Changes: - modified script which now creates an array of extracted examples along with the metadatas of it
Changes: - updated the script to make new documents for each examples in the asyncapi.md, and then store them into a new file for further vaidation process - remove an extra character in asyncapi.md
Changes: - trying to maintain the consistency of the single quotes and double quotes
Changes: - the heading was mistakenly deleted during the addition of comments in the spec file
Changes: - applied suggestion from: asyncapi#1059 (comment) - applied suggestion from: asyncapi#1059 (comment)
Changes: - modify yaml example which was failing due to not properly formatted structure - update json pointer at one location
Changes: - The json pointer library doesn't supports the URI representation, so to reduce the extra work this change was made
apply suggestion: asyncapi#1059 (comment) Co-authored-by: Sergio Moya <1083296+smoya@users.noreply.github.com>
Changes: - adjust script according to suggestion: asyncapi#1059 (comment)
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.
LGTM!
/rtm |
Some tasks remaining (out of bounty scope) |
Description
Remaining tasks:
Related issue(s):
Resolves #957