Lets say I have two schemas defined as follows -
ADDRESS_CLASS_SCHEMA_DEFINITION = {
"title": "Address",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"country_code": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/CountryCode"
},
"city_code": {
"title": "City Code",
"type": "string"
},
"zipcode": {
"title": "Zipcode",
"type": "string"
},
"address_str": {
"title": "Address Str",
"type": "string"
}
},
"required": [
"country_code",
"city_code",
"zipcode"
],
"definitions": {
"CountryCode": {
"title": "CountryCode",
"description": "An enumeration.",
"enum": [
"CA",
"USA",
"UK"
],
"type": "string"
}
}
}
EMPLOYEE_CLASS_SCHEMA_DEFINITION = {
"title": "Employee",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"id": {
"title": "Id",
"type": "integer"
},
"name": {
"title": "Name",
"type": "string"
},
"email": {
"title": "Email",
"type": "string"
},
"telephone": {
"title": "Telephone",
"type": "string"
},
"address": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/Address"
}
},
"required": [
"id",
"name",
"email"
],
"definitions": {
"Address": ADDRESS_CLASS_SCHEMA_DEFINITION
}
}
I'm trying to re-use sub-schema definitions by defining a constant and referencing them individually in definitions (for example address-schema is referenced through constant in employee-schema definition). This approach works for individual schemas, however there seems to be a json-pointer path issue for Employee schema - #/definitions/CountryCode wouldn't resolve in Employee schema. I was assuming that #/definitions/CountryCode would be a relative path on Address schema as its scope is defined on a sub-schema, but my understanding seems wrong. I can make it work by flattening out like below, however I donot want to take this route -
{
"title": "Employee",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"id": {
"title": "Id",
"type": "integer"
},
"name": {
"title": "Name",
"type": "string"
},
"email": {
"title": "Email",
"type": "string"
},
"telephone": {
"title": "Telephone",
"type": "string"
},
"address": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/Address"
}
},
"required": [
"id",
"name",
"email"
],
"definitions": {
"CountryCode": {
"title": "CountryCode",
"description": "An enumeration.",
"enum": [
"CA",
"USA",
"UK"
],
"type": "string"
},
"Address": {
"title": "Address",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"country_code": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/CountryCode"
},
"city_code": {
"title": "City Code",
"type": "string"
},
"zipcode": {
"title": "Zipcode",
"type": "string"
},
"address_str": {
"title": "Address Str",
"type": "string"
}
},
"required": [
"country_code",
"city_code",
"zipcode"
]
}
}
}
I'm wondering how to fix this, I've briefly looked into jsonschema-bundling and using $id but from best practices it seems like the general recommendation is to use $id when dealing with URI's alone. Would like to know about best practices and how to fix this problem, would also appreciate if someone can point me on how to use $id correctly (for example, constant based approach seems to work when I provide identifiers like $id: Address, $id: Employee). Thanks in advance.
JSON Schema implementations work in JSON land. When you combine your schemas in your example above, presumably in javascript/node.js, by the time it gets to the JSON Schema implementation for validation execution, any knowledge that there were separate schemas is lost. (It's generally not considered that this approach is the best approach.)
The EASY fix here SHOULD be just to define $id in each of the roots of your schemas. These should be a fully qualfied URI. It doesn't really matter what they are at this point. They could be https://example.com/a and https://example.com/b. Then, in the primary schema, you can do $ref: https://example.com/b.
Implementations should provide you with a way to load in your other/non-primary schemas so the $id values can be stored in an index. Using $id in your other schema with a fully qualified URI will signify a "resource boundary".
https://json-schema.hyperjump.io is the only web playground to support multiple files/schemas/"Schema Resources", so you can test this out there to confirm your expectations.
Not all implementations make it easy or even provide a means to import your other schemas, but they should.
If you have follow up questions, feel free to leave a comment, or join the JSON Schema slack server if it would be off-topic for StackOverflow.
Related
I have a JSON object like:
{
"result": [
{
"name" : "abc",
"email": "abc.test#mail.com"
},
{
"name": "def",
"email": "def.test#mail.com"
},
{
"name": "xyz",
"email": "abc.test#mail.com"
}
]
}
and schema for this:
{
"definitions": {},
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
"$id": "https://example.com/object1607582431.json",
"title": "Root",
"type": "object",
"required": [
"result"
],
"properties": {
"result": {
"$id": "#root/result",
"title": "Result",
"type": "array",
"default": [],
"uniqueItems": true,
"items": {
"$id": "#root/result/items",
"title": "Items",
"type": "object",
"required": [
"name",
"email"
],
"properties": {
"name": {
"$id": "#root/result/items/name",
"title": "Name",
"type": "string"
},
"email": {
"$id": "#root/result/items/email",
"title": "Email",
"type": "string"
}
}
}
}
}
}
I am looking for an option to check uniqueness for email irrespective of name. How I can validate that every email should be unique?
You can't. There are no keywords that let you compare one particular data value against another, other than uniqueItems, which compares an array element in toto against another.
The JsonSchema specification does not currently support this.
You can see the active GitHub issue here: https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-vocabularies/issues/22
However, there are various extensions of JsonSchema that do validate unique fields within lists of objects.
If you happen to be using Python you can use the package (I created) JsonVL. It can be installed with pip install jsonvl and then run with jsonvl data.json schema.json.
Code examples in the GitHub repo: https://github.com/gregorybchris/jsonvl
I know that fields listed in a json schema object have no defined order, since they are not an array, but I am looking for a way to be able to display them in the proper order in my application UI.
Workarounds I have found so far include things like using a different serializer, or even hard-coding a number into the field name.
I would like to come up with something that works with my current setup.
Hibernate, Spring Boot, and a react-app front end.
given this GET request:
/profile/personEntities
with header: Accept: application/schema+json
I will receive this:
{
"title": "Person entity",
"properties": {
"birthday": {
"title": "Birthday",
"readOnly": false,
"type": "string",
"format": "date-time"
},
"lastName": {
"title": "Last name",
"readOnly": false,
"type": "string"
},
"address": {
"title": "Address",
"readOnly": false,
"type": "string",
"format": "uri"
},
"firstName": {
"title": "First name",
"readOnly": false,
"type": "string"
},
"email": {
"title": "Email",
"readOnly": false,
"type": "string"
},
"cellPhone": {
"title": "Cell phone",
"readOnly": false,
"type": "string"
}
},
"requiredProperties": [
"firstName",
"lastName"
],
"definitions": {},
"type": "object",
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-04/schema#"
}
I have tried adding #JsonProperty(index=2) to the field, but nothing changes.
Thank you much for any tips.
If you're using Jackson to handle your serialization/deserialization you can use #JsonPropertyOrder - from their docs:
// ensure that "id" and "name" are output before other properties
#JsonPropertyOrder({ "id", "name" })
// order any properties that don't have explicit setting using alphabetic order
#JsonPropertyOrder(alphabetic=true)
See: http://fasterxml.github.io/jackson-annotations/javadoc/2.3.0/com/fasterxml/jackson/annotation/JsonPropertyOrder.html
I want to do three things
Validate JSON against a JSON-Schema
Create JSON-Schema to AVRO Schema converter
Create JSON-Schema to Hive Table converter
The problem I'm facing is the Schema has a referencing chain.
I'm trying to use this JSON Schema Validator which resolves reference and validates but getting some errors at the moment.
But I haven't been able to find any library for the 2nd and the 3rd task.
And I have to create Nifi processors for these. I have done it for the first one.
One idea I have is to use an Inline Parser to deference the Schemas and create one big schema and use that for the tasks and hopefully, everything will work smoothly afterward.
Any suggestions on what is a good approach to tackle these issues.
One of the schemas is attached. Any help would be appreciated.
{
"id": "/schemas/bi/events/identification/carrier",
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-04/schema#",
"title": "Users Carrier Identified",
"description": "A successfully identified carrier of a user",
"type": "object",
"definitions": {
"carrier_identification_result": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"mno": {
"type": "string",
"title": "Mobile network operator",
"description": "The Mobile network operator",
"example": "Telekom"
},
"mvno": {
"type": "string",
"title": " Mobile virtual network operator",
"description": "The Mobile virtual network operator.",
"example": "Mobilcom-Debitel"
},
"mcc": {
"type": "string",
"title": "Mobile Country Code",
"description": "The Mobile Country Code as defined in the ITU-T Recommendation E.212",
"example": "262"
},
"mnc": {
"type": "string",
"title": "Mobile Network Code",
"description": "The Mobile Network Code as defined in the ITU-T Recommendation E.212",
"example": "01"
},
"country": {
"type": "string",
"title": "The code ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 for the country",
"example": "DE"
}
},
"required": [
"mno",
"country"
]
}
},
"allOf": [
{
"$ref": "../identification_service.json"
},
{
"properties": {
"type": {
"constant": "identification.carrier",
"example": "identification.carrier"
},
"event_data": {
"allOf": [
{
"$ref": "../identification_service.json#/definitions/event_data"
},
{
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"result": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/carrier_identification_result"
},
"required": [
"result"
]
}
}
]
}
}
}
]
}
My local PouchDB docs won't replicate to my remote CouchDB.
The sync is happening, because the browser downloaded my design schema, so it's not a permissions issue. I think that my design schema doesn't match my documents, but I struggled to find the correct way to write the schema.
Schema
{
"_id": "_design/schema",
"_rev": "4-3d9a49ebffbbd6b7b146240879baa7e4",
"validate_doc_update": "function(newDoc, oldDoc, userCtx, secObj){ if(userCtx.roles[0] !== 'admin'){throw({forbidden: 'operation forbidden'})} }",
"views": {
"by_module": {
"map": "function(doc){ if(doc.type == 'note'){emit(doc.note);} }"
}
},
"schema": {
"title": "Contact details",
"description": "A document containing a person's contact details.",
"type": "object",
"required": [
"name",
"level"
],
"properties": {
"_id": {
"type": "string"
},
"_rev": {
"type": "string"
},
"application_access": {
"type": "string"
},
"home": {
"type": "string"
},
"home_email": {
"type": "string"
},
"jobtitle": {
"type": "string"
},
"level": {
"type": "string"
},
"mobile1": {
"type": "string"
},
"mobile2": {
"type": "string"
},
"modified": {
"type": "number"
},
"name": {
"type": "string"
},
"work": {
"type": "string"
},
"work_email": {
"type": "string"
},
"_doc_id_rev": {
"type": "string"
}
}
}
}
Doc
{
"_id": "fcb52b3072e2038647b328c0a700147f",
"_rev": "1518449239461",
"application_access": "User",
"home": "",
"home_email": "",
"jobtitle": "Exemplar",
"level": "Bronze",
"mobile1": "0987654321",
"mobile2": "",
"modified": 1518449239461,
"name": "Zachary Zumbeispiel",
"work": "",
"work_email": "",
"_doc_id_rev": "1518449239460::1-ffd3c056614845ada4a68de4793710ac"
}
So the question is, does my doc conform to my schema? Or is my schema wrong?
The "schema" was on the CouchDB instance, and the doc was in PouchDB.
They are replicating now, because I removed the "document schema" and so it can sync & replicate.
So the problem was that I had read somewhere that I needed to add a schema to CouchDB, so I created what I thought was a schema, and evidently the structure of the docs to be synced has to be the same, so the sync did not work because the structure of the docs did not match.
Hence #Flimzy 's explanation that the whole notion of a schema was bobbins meant that I removed the "schema", and voila, the PouchDB and CouchDB can now sync - and problem solved.
I got the below schema from http://json-schema.org/examples.html, i want to know if the required keyword can only come at the top level. or it can also come within the properties if there is a property of type object.I could not find any thing related to this in the specification https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fge-json-schema-validation-00#section-5.4.3.
{
"title": "Example Schema",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"firstName": {
"type": "string"
},
"lastName": {
"type": "string"
},
"age": {
"description": "Age in years",
"type": "integer",
"minimum": 0
}
},
"required": ["firstName", "lastName"]
}
So the below example is a valid schema
{
"title":"Example Schema",
"type":"object",
"properties":{
"firstName":{
"type":"string"
},
"lastName":{
"type":"string"
},
"age":{
"type":"object",
"properties":{
"minAge":{
"type":"number"
},
"maxAge":{
"type":"number"
},
"required":[
"minAge",
"maxAge"
]
}
}
},
"required":[
"firstName",
"lastName"
]
}
4.4 Keywords with the possibility to validate container instances (arrays
or objects) only validate the instances themselves and not their
children (array items or object properties).
So I see that yes, you can have those on any level but the validation should be only consider on the same level as required
Yes, required is a valid keyword in any schema. There are no restrictions for nested schemas.
To use your example, the following is a valid schema and will validate the way you want it to.
{
"title": "Example Schema",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"firstName": {
"type": "string"
},
"lastName": {
"type": "string"
},
"age": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"minAge": {
"type": "number"
},
"maxAge": {
"type": "number"
}
},
"required": [
"minAge",
"maxAge"
]
}
},
"required": [
"firstName",
"lastName"
]
}
The required keyword can be present in any schema. This is true of all schema keywords.
(There is a special-case for the meta-keyword $schema, for which it is advisable to only have in the top level)