-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 592
Enhancing by_relevance / best_match (PR for issue 728) #753
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
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
2cae0ce
Checking the type of the error against the type of the instance to im…
miquelougoogle 2c72e5a
Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/bliiben/jsonschema
miquelougoogle 2fd5501
Adding a test to ensure that the error returned by best_match priorit…
miquelougoogle 38b291e
Add a test to ensure that best_match prioritize the error that have t…
miquelougoogle 08ba61e
Add a test to ensure that best_match prioritize the error that have t…
miquelougoogle d123a7b
Removing mapping between the validator and the type of instance it is
miquelougoogle eca6322
Cleaning up the mapping between function and type it applies to
miquelougoogle 79634da
Cleaning up whitespaces
miquelougoogle File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
So! Thanks again for trying to tackle this.
I still want to go for something a lot simpler than the code here. Maybe this will help as a start -- I think the changes to this file and this function probably should be just something like:
The missing piece there is that the type checker that's used is not in fact carried onto Errors at the minute, but that should be 1-2 lines to add.
If you want to see what that does, you can try instead starting with:
And looking to see what it does to your test cases. From here it looks like it passes your first new one (which was the one that #728 was mainly targeting).
It fails the other two, but I'm not 100% convinced on the other two personally. If we do want to support them though, which yeah we should think about, there are other ways to handle them -- e.g. perhaps errors from non-container types (simple value types, e.g. strings, bools, etc.) should prioritize enum and const validators.
Hopefully the above is a breadcrumb to move this further a bit?
Let me know either way, and probably also worth having a look at CI to make sure it passes with whatever change, it'll be needed before we merge.
Appreciated again for staying on top of this!