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

Break out optional tests into requirement-level directories #708

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

gregsdennis
Copy link
Member

@gregsdennis gregsdennis commented Nov 22, 2023

This is another attempt at #590: it would be nice to have the optional tests indicate to what degree they are optional.

I've also added readmes to each of the directories so that the intent of the folder is known (both for implementors and for people amending the tests).

I've only done draft/next for now. I'm not sure if we want to apply this to the previous versions.

Refs: #495 #25

Open Questions

bignum & float-overflow

Are these tests in optional because the JSON spec makes a concession for environments that can't handle arbitrary numbers? While JSON Schema doesn't define any restrictions, it also doesn't make any such concessions.

I've put them in undefined/ for now.

References:

format-assertion

The spec isn't explicit on the requirement level for vocabularies as a feature. I'd (@gregsdennis) assume it's a MUST, but that's just an interpretation.

There are requirement levels on $vocabulary and its usage, but nothing requiring that vocabularies be a supported feature in general.

As such, I'm not sure where this should go.

First, all of these tests assume that the format-assertion vocabulary is understood, which is optional. ("An implementation that supports the Format-Assertion vocabulary..." implies that implementations have the option to not support it.)

Secondly, assuming the above, these test become mandatory because "full validation support" is a MUST requirement.

I think this is a MAY overall, but could use confirmation.

Also, we don't have any tests around not understanding the format-assertion vocabulary. I think this is partially due to the fact that we can't handle error scenarios.

References:

@gregsdennis gregsdennis requested a review from a team as a code owner November 22, 2023 21:31
@gregsdennis
Copy link
Member Author

Maybe instead of moving tests, we can copy them in the new organization scheme to a new folder so that older test suite runners can still operate.

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.

None yet

1 participant