I am struggling to understand if it's possible to write a json schema that requires certain properties, but also allows those properties to be in different areas of the json file (e.g. a property value can be in the main top-level object OR it can be in an array - it just needs to be somewhere).
For example, I have some devices that collect multiple temperature records over the course of a few hours and send the records in batches. However, some of the devices send the software version once in the main object, while others send the software version along with each hourly temperature record (inside a "records" array).
Example 1 (swversion sent once in main object):
{
"name": "device1",
"swversion": "1.3.abc2",
"records": [
{
"time": "10am",
"temp": 2
},
{
"time": "11am",
"temp": 4
}
]
}
Example 2 (swversion sent inside "records" array):
{
"name": "device1",
"records": [
{
"time": "10am",
"temp": 2,
"swversion": "1.3.abc2"
},
{
"time": "11am",
"temp": 4,
"swversion": "1.3.abc2"
}
]
}
Using these examples, I would like to write my schema definition as follows (the first two bullets are easy, the last one is where I'm struggling):
Main object requires name property and records array
records array can contain objects where time and temp would be required
swversion is required somewhere (could be in the main object or inside records array)
Is there a feature I'm missing in json-schema that enforces required properties, yet allows the flexibility for said properties to be anywhere (e.g. within an object OR an array), as long as they are present somewhere?
The anyOf keyword is a boolean OR operation. At least one of the schemas must pass for the keyword to pass. The first schema requires that the "swversion" property is present at the top level. The second schema requires that the "swversion" property is required in each of the items in the "record" array.
{
... define the easy stuff here, then ...,
"anyOf": [
{ "required": ["swversion"] },
{
"properties": {
"records": {
{ "items": { "required": ["swversion"] } }
}
}
}
]
}
In this example, "swversion" could appear in both places. If you only want to ensure that it only appear in one place (top level or items), you can use oneOf instead of anyOf.
Is there a feature .. that allows the flexibility for said properties to be anywhere
Not directly, but it's not difficult to express this. You can define the structure of "swversion" itself in a definition that is re-used via a reference.
In pseudocode, that would be:
any of:
the main object contains a "swversion" property,
all the items under "records" contain a "swversion" property
In code:
{
"$defs": {
"swversion": {
"type": "string",
.. other constraints?
}
},
"type": "object",
"properties": {
... other property definitions ...,
"records": {
"items": {
"type": "object",
... other definitions for the mandatory portion of records ...
}
}
},
"anyOf": [
{
"$comment": "swversion is a member of the main object",
"required": [ "swversion" ],
"properties": {
"swversion": {
"$ref": "#/$defs/swversion"
}
},
{
"$comment": "swversion is a member of all the items under the records property",
"properties": {
"records": {
"items": {
"type": "object",
"required": [ "swversion" ],
"properties": {
"swversion": {
"$ref": "#/$defs/swversion"
}
}
}
}
}
}
],
}
Note that if you are using JSON Schema version draft7 or earlier, change $defs to definitions.
Related
I have a a number of objects which share a common set of features but differ in one or more properties. The common content is specified as media content in the definitions. I have provided one such object with a 'format' property, but there are other objects, omitted to keep it short, that also have additional properties. Here is a snippet of my attempt at constructing the schema. Is this the correct way to accomplish, this? Many thanks
"definitions": {
"media-content":{
"type": "object",
"title": {
"type": "string"
},
"related-media": {
"type": "object",
"additionalProperties": {
"type": "string"
}
}
},
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"type": {
"format": "string",
"enum":["audio", "video"]
},
"category": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/media-content"
}
}
Is this the way to do it?
The first thing that stands out to me is that this isn't valid JSON Schema.
The title keyword provides a title for the schema so it expects a string, but because you've provided a schema, it looks like you're wanting it to be a property. Similarly related-media looks like you expect this to be a property. Are you missing wrapping these in a properties keyword, like you have later for type and category?
These changes would make media-content look like this:
"media-content":{
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"title": {
"type": "string"
},
"related-media": {
"type": "object",
"additionalProperties": {
"type": "string"
}
}
}
}
I have provided one such object with a 'format' property
Again, here, I'm not sure what you're getting at.
"properties": {
"type": {
"format": "string",
"enum":["audio", "video"]
},
"category": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/media-content"
}
}
This says you're expecting type to be a property in your object, but format isn't used right. Although the format keyword has some predefined types and does accept custom values, the way you're using it look like you really want to be using the type keyword. In the end, it doesn't matter because enum will restrict the value to the items you declare in the array ("audio" or "video").
It might be easier to see what you're trying to do if you posted a full minimum exaple.
That said, I'll try to build one to answer the question I think you're asking.
It sounds like you're wanting to build a polymorphic relationship: an inheritance hierarchy where a base type defines some properties and a number of derived types define additional properties.
There's not really a good way to do that with JSON Schema because JSON Schema is a constraints system. That is, you start with {} where anything is valid, and by adding keywords, you're reducing the number of values that are valid.
Still, you might be able to achieve something close by using allOf and $ref.
First, declare the base property set in its own schema. I'd separate them into independent schemas for easier handling. You also need to give it an $id.
{
"$id": "/base-type"
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"base-prop-1": { "type": "string" },
"base-prop-2": { "type": "number" }
}
}
Next, for each of your "derived" schemas, you'll want to create a new schema, each with their own $id value, that references the base schema and declares its own additional requirements.
{
"$id": "/derived-type-1",
"allOf": [
{ "$ref": "/base-type" },
{
"properties": {
"derived-prop": { "type": "boolean" }
}
}
]
}
This second schema requires everything from the /base-type and also requires a derived-prop property that holds a boolean value.
I need to refer to a sub-schema of certain property (Kind in the example) from a different property in the schema, and then enforce some more conditions on it. Important thing to note is I cannot make those changes where I've defined Kind, I need to refer to it from some other property and then add conditionals on top of it.
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
"properties": {
"Kind": {
"$id": "#/properties/Kind",
"type": "string",
"enum": [
"Foo",
"Bar"
]
}
},
"allOf": [
{
"if": {
"$ref": "#/properties/Kind",
"const": "Foo"
},
"then": {
"required": [
"MyField"
]
}
}
]
}
A json object like below should fail the validation, because MyField property is absent
{
"Kind": "Foo"
}
I don't want the following solution, since this is just a simplified version and ultimately I want to refer to Kind value from another property. If I do following, then #/properties/Kind is interpreted relative to where I refer Kind so it doesn't refer to the Kind at the top level. I want a solution which uses the $ref and $id keywords.
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
"properties": {
"Kind": {
"$id": "#/properties/Kind",
"type": "string",
"enum": [
"Foo",
"Bar"
]
}
},
"allOf": [
{
"if": {
"properties": {"Kind":{
"const":"Foo"
}}
},
"then": {
"required": [
"MyField"
]
}
}
]
}
To summarize, let's say I've following JSON structure. The last allOf statement is what I need to add.
- Kind ( enum of One,Two)
- Other
- MyField
- ConditionField
- allOf ( which enforces the required-ness of MyField based on ConditionField)
- allOf ( MyField should be not-required if Kind is One)
[ To add this last conditional, I need to reference the value of Kind.
I'm hoping providing $id to Kind and referring to it with $ref should be my approach,
which doesn't seem to be working]
To summarize even further, I would get my answer if we're able to get the first snippet work using $id and $ref.
There seem to be some misunderstandings that are making it difficult to fully understand the problem here, but one part of the edited question makes enough sense that I think I can start things off and we can iterate on the answer as necessary.
Let's start with some of the things that don't make sense in hopes that it helps clarify possible misunderstandings.
$ref can't change the behavior of a schema. If you can't do something without $ref, then you can't make the schema behave another way by introducing $ref. The only exception to that rule is recursive schemas, which would require an infinitely large and repeating schema without using $ref.
I'm not sure what you are trying to get from $id, but it's pretty safe to say you don't need it for this. In any case, the $id used the question is invalid. An anchor can not have a / in it. Even if it was valid, it would be redundant because you can reference that location with the same JSON Pointer without an anchor.
MyField should be not-required if Kind is One
I'm not sure if "not-required" means forbidden or optional. Everything is optional by default in JSON Schema, so if you meant optional, there is nothing to do here. Therefore, I'll assume for now that you mean forbidden. Here's what that would look like.
{
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"Kind": { "enum": ["One", "Two"] },
"Other": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"MyField": {}
}
}
},
"allOf": [
{
"if": {
"properties": {
"Kind": { "const": "One" }
},
"required": ["Kind"]
},
"then": {
"properties": {
"Other": {
"not": { "required": ["MyField"] }
}
}
}
}
]
}
I am developing a JSON Schema for validating documents like this one:
{
"map": [
{
"key": "mandatoryKey1",
"value": "value1"
},
{
"key": "mandatoryKey2",
"value": "value2"
},
{
"key": "otherStuff",
"value": "value3"
},
{
"key": "someMoreStuff",
"value": "value4"
}
]
}
The document needs to have a "map" array with elements containing keys and values. There MUST be two elements with mandatoryKey1 and mandatoryKey2. Any other key-value pairs are allowed. Order of the elements should not matter. I found this difficult to express in JSON Schema. I can force the schema to check for the mandatory keys like this (left out the definitions part as it is trivial) :
"map": {
"type": "array",
"minItems": 2,
"items": {
"oneOf": [
{
"$ref": "#/definitions/mandatoryElement1"
},
{
"$ref": "#/definitions/mandatoryElement2"
}
]
}
}
The problems are:
It validates that a document includes the mandatory data, but does not permit any other key/value pairs.
It does not check for duplicates, so it can cheated by including mandatoryElement1 twice. Uniqueness of items can only be checked by tuple validation, which I cannot apply here cause the item order should not matter.
The basic problem I see here is that the array elements somehow need to know about each other, i.e. arbitrary key/value pairs are allowed ONLY IF the mandatory keys are present. This "conditional validation" does not seem to be possible with JSON Schema. Any ideas for a better approach?
Im trying to make a system monitor, which is highly customisable by user. This customization is achieved by using JSON file for modeling look of system monitor. The JSON could look like this.
{
"_": "WINDOW",
"name": "myWindow",
"children": [
{
"_": "CPU",
"name": "cpuMonitor",
"freq_Unit": "MHZ"
},
{
"_": "NETWORK",
"name": "network",
"unit": "Kb/s"
},
{
"_": "DISK",
"name": "disk"
}
],
"background": "red"
}
As you can see, each object coresponds to this schema.
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
"name":"Component",
"type": "object",
"properties":{
"_": {
"type": "string"
},
"name":{
"type":"string"
},
"childern":{
"type":"array"
}
},
"required": ["_","name"]
}
But each component has also its own schema definition. I'd like to parse whole JSON and validate each node for different schema (first if its component and then to its corresponding schema).
I had look at rapidJson and other libraries, but I didnt find solution for validating nodes for different schema. Do you know any library which could do that? Or is it even possible to validate JSON in this way?
All feedback on how to solve this will be appreciated.
Edit: Corrected schema :(
There's a simple approach involved with that, use the oneOf pattern declaration to specify the layout of the array elements. Inside these nested declarations, you specify the fixed identifier (probably the content of your _ field) as a constant, so that there is only one nested schema matching each of your panel types.
Notes:
I had to specify the constant type identifier using the enum specifier because the regular constant specifier didn't work with the library I was using. This may also have been an oversight in the revision of the specification that it was based on.
A different approach is to split the the validation steps. You simply verify that the elements of the array are objects and that they have a string field _ containing one of the supported types. When iterating over the array, you then validate each field individually according to its _ field.
In addition to Ulrich's answer, here's an example of what I'd do:
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
"title": "Component",
"type": "object",
"definitions": {
"base": {
"properties": {
"name": { "type": "string" },
"children": {
"type": "array",
"items": { "$ref": "#" }
}
},
"required": [ "_", "name" ]
},
"cpu": {
"properties": {
"_": { "const": "CPU" },
"freq_Unit": "MHZ"
}
},
"network": {
"properties": {
"_": { "const": "NETWORK" },
"unit": "Kb/s"
}
},
"disk": {
"properties": {
"_": { "const": "DISK" }
}
},
"window": {
"properties": {
"_": { "const": "WINDOW" },
"background": { "enum": [ "red", "orange", "yellow", ... ] }
}
}
},
"allOf": [
{ "$ref": "#/definitions/base" },
{
"oneOf": [
{ "$ref": "#/definitions/cpu" },
{ "$ref": "#/definitions/network" },
{ "$ref": "#/definitions/disk" },
{ "$ref": "#/definitions/window" }
]
}
]
}
First, we require that any instance MUST adhere to base which declares _ and name as required properties. Additionally, we declare a children array property that requires all items also match this schema (giving us a recursive behavior). This doesn't really do much except that it allows us to declare these things in one place instead of having to declare them in the other three definitions.
(Note that we don't declare _ in the properties list. This means that any value will pass for this portion of the schema. We clean it up in the next part. If you want to ensure that future components are declared with strings, then you can add a "type": "string" requirement to that property, but I don't feel it's necessary unless others are authoring those components.)
Second, we declare each of our specific types as separate definitions, using the const keyword to isolate the one we want. This construct is analogous to a switch (or case) statement. If the instance doesn't match one of these explicit options, it fails. If it's missing one of the required base properties, it fails.
This will get you where you want to be.
To take it further, there are two more things you can do:
Add required to the other definitions to say that the specific properties are also required (e.g. freq_Unit for the cpu definition).
Declare each of the definitions in separate files. This would allow you to add a new definition by simply adding a new file and referencing it in the main schema. In my opinion, it's a bit cleaner. Some people prefer to have it all in one file, though.
What are the features present in the schema draft 4 that are not in the JSON schema draft 3 produced by IETF ?
From the change logs:
New keywords
anyOf (match at least one schema in the schema array),
allOf (match all schemas in the schema array),
oneOf (match exactly one schema in the schema array),
not (do not match the schema),
multipleOf (replaces divisibleBy),
minProperties and maxProperties (the minimum and maximum number of members in an object instance),
definitions (standardized container for inlined subschemas).
Removed:
disallow
extends
divisbleBy
Changed in functionality:
Type
When the value is an array, schemas are no longer allowed as elements. Also, the array must have at least one element.
Before
{
"type": [ "string", { "other": "schema" } ]
}
Now
{
"anyOf": [
{ "type": "string" },
{ "other": "schema" }
]
}
Required
Before, it was an attribute of subschemas in properties. It is now a first level keyword playing the same role, and has a string array as an argument.
Before
{
"properties": {
"p": {
"type": "string",
"required": true
},
"q": {
"type": "string",
"required": true
}
}
}
Now
{
"properties": {
"p": { "type": "string" },
"q": { "type": "string" }
},
"required": [ "p", "q" ]
}
Dependencies
A single string in a property dependency is no longer allowed, only arrays are allowed
Before
{
"dependencies": { "a": "b" }
}
Now
{
"dependencies": { "a": [ "b" ] }
}
If you're interested in a deep dive, you can review a diff between the two drafts on the IETF site.
However, if you're looking for a simpler summary of changes, Geraint Luff and Francis Galiegue created a changelog page on the project's github wiki that lists the changes, additions, and removals.