feat(common): json schema linting for common validation(s)

[mike-winberry]

Description

• create json schema for common.Validation.
• create methods to run linting against a validation
• add to workflow so that validations are linted when being converted to LulaValidation
• update docs with validation info and how to add validation linting to vscode
• create lula dev lint command.
• update contributing/dev guidelines for updating the schema
  • add to pr template (checklist item)

Related Issue

#364

Type of change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Other (security config, docs update, etc)

Checklist before merging

• Test, docs, adr added or updated as needed
• Contributor Guide Steps followed

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for lula-docs canceled.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	500574f
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/lula-docs/deploys/668ebc3968667e000884ef3b

[mike-winberry]

• fix schemas for e2e

[meganwolf0]

I tried this with a lula t lint -f component-1.yaml,component-2.yaml and component-1.yaml was a bad component-definition, but instead of it telling me it was a bad one/it failed linting, it instead said "Failed to compose component-1.yaml". That might be an ok enough error or we might want to sneak an extra component-definition lint in there to get more info? Also, it just stopped there instead of also linting the second file, which I thought we tried to fix in a separate issue so this compose logic might break that somehow.

[mike-winberry]

I tried this with a lula t lint -f component-1.yaml,component-2.yaml and component-1.yaml was a bad component-definition, but instead of it telling me it was a bad one/it failed linting, it instead said "Failed to compose component-1.yaml". That might be an ok enough error or we might want to sneak an extra component-definition lint in there to get more info? Also, it just stopped there instead of also linting the second file, which I thought we tried to fix in a separate issue so this compose logic might break that somehow.

Based on group discussion:

• remove compose logic from lint
• create dev lint
• still in validate
• still in compose (for now)
• still in dev validate

[meganwolf0]

tried out the dev lint and I hate to nitpick but would it be possible to get the actual error output instead of just the file failing lint? It looks like that might be a little tricky since you're handling a list of files so if we want to punt this to a separate issue and tackle later I'm good with that. I think it would just be nice to indicate what failed there.

[mike-winberry]

tried out the dev lint and I hate to nitpick but would it be possible to get the actual error output instead of just the file failing lint? It looks like that might be a little tricky since you're handling a list of files so if we want to punt this to a separate issue and tackle later I'm good with that. I think it would just be nice to indicate what failed there.

Ill take a look, I think that should be easy ish, I have an idea, ill let you know when its pushed, and you can tell me if it works!

[mike-winberry]

tried out the dev lint and I hate to nitpick but would it be possible to get the actual error output instead of just the file failing lint? It looks like that might be a little tricky since you're handling a list of files so if we want to punt this to a separate issue and tackle later I'm good with that. I think it would just be nice to indicate what failed there.

Ill take a look, I think that should be easy ish, I have an idea, ill let you know when its pushed, and you can tell me if it works!

[brandtkeller]

Appreciate how this feeds errors down into the assessment result during lula validate. lula dev lint feels like the right placement.