Create JSON Schema value dependency - json

I have a JSON schema I want to change by a dependency of one of the values of the JSON structure. For example if {"foo":1} also include {"fooBar":"number"} in the schema, resulting in {"foo":"number", "fooBar":"number"} but if {"foo":2} instead include {"fooBar2":"bool", "fooBar3":"string"} resulting in {"foo":1, "fooBar2":"bool", "fooBar3":"string"}. Is this possible.
I know how to make the inclusion of a key change the schema (code example from here) but I cannot find any example on how this could be done using values. If this is even possible.
{
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"name": { "type": "string" },
"credit_card": { "type": "number" },
"billing_address": { "type": "string" }
},
"required": ["name"],
"dependencies": {
"credit_card": ["billing_address"]
}
}

It can be done, but it's a little complicated. Below is the general pattern.
{
"type": "object",
"anyOf": [
{
"properties": {
"foo": { "enum": [1] },
"fooBar": { "type": "number" }
}
},
{
"properties": {
"foo": { "enum": [2] },
"fooBar2": { "type": "boolean" },
"fooBar3": { "type": "string" }
}
}
]
}

Related

How Do I Require that a Sub-Property Must Exist Using JSON Schema?

In JSON Schema, I can use require to ensure that a property exists on the same level of the hierarchy, but I'm having trouble validating for nested ones.
Suppose I have following JSON Schema:
{
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"my_type": {
"type": "string"
},
"t1_data": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"id": {
"type": "string"
}
}
},
"t2_data": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"id": {
"type": "string"
}
}
}
}
}
How would I specify the following validations?
if my_type == "type1", then t1_data.id must exist
if my_type == "type2", then t2_data.id must exist
if my_type is anything else, validation passes
I've tried using the require and anyOf constructs but I could only get them to work at the same level of the hierarchy.
Thanks,
A possible solution is to combine allOf and if-then. It is a little bit verbose but I am not aware of any shorter way. Here is the schema for the case "type1":
{
"$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2019-09/schema",
"description": "JSON schema generated with JSONBuddy https://www.json-buddy.com",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"my_type": {
"type": "string"
},
"t1_data": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"id": {
"type": "string"
}
}
},
"t2_data": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"id": {
"type": "string"
}
}
}
},
"allOf": [
{
"if": {
"properties": {
"my_type": {
"const": "type1"
}
}
},
"then": {
"properties": {
"t1_data": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"id": {
"type": "string"
}
},
"required": [ "id" ]
}
}
}
}
]
}
"type2" would be quite the same as next schema in the allOf array.

Json Schema for Aspect Oriented Json files

So my json structure is aspect oriented, meaning that the json is structure in a way that each data is represented by a key and that key will define the structure of its content.
for example:
[
{
"nv": [{ "ln": 123 }]
},
{
"metadata": [{ "name": "nodes" }, { "name": "edges" }]
},
{
"nodes": [{ "#id": 1 }, { "#id": 2 }]
},
{
"edges": [
{ "#id": 1, "nodeId": 1 },
{ "#id": 2, "nodeId": 2 }
]
},
{
"status": [{ "success": true }]
}
]
As shown 3 objects (nv, metadata, status) and based on the name inside of the metadata there will be objects inside the json file.
I tried something like this:
{
"type": "array",
"items": [
{
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"nv": { "type": "array", "items": { "$ref": "#definitions/nv" } }
},
"required": ["nv"]
},
{
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"metaData": {
"type": "array",
"items": { "$ref": "#definitions/metadata" }
}
},
"required": ["metaData"]
},
{
"anyOf": [
{
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"nodes": {
"type": "array",
"items": { "$ref": "#definitions/nodes" }
}
}
},
{
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"edges": {
"type": "array",
"items": { "$ref": "#definitions/edges" }
}
}
},
{
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"edgeAttribute": {
"type": "array",
"items": { "$ref": "#definitions/edgeAttribute" }
}
}
},
{
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"nodeAttribute": {
"type": "array",
"items": { "$ref": "#definitions/nodeAttribute" }
}
}
}
]
},
{
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"status": {
"type": "array",
"items": { "$ref": "#definitions/status" }
}
},
"required": ["status"]
}
],
"definitions": {
"status": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"success": { "type": "boolean" }
}
"etc..."
}
}
}
but then if I define an empty array it will be accepted, also it is being accepted if the array only contains one of the 3 required objects.
So is there a way to validate against something like the example using json-schemas?
The real scenario may have more than just 2 objects inside of the metadata that's why I did not use if -> then -> else conditions. if the solution is by using them then please let me know.
The structure of the data makes this a rough one, but there are a few patterns you can use to get the behavior you want. Let's take them one at a time.
Declare an array that can contain any of a number of objects
Generally people use oneOf for this, but I don't recommend that because it can have poor performance and incomprehensible error messages. Usually that means if/then, but in this case you can get good results by defining your items as a single object that only allows one property at a time in each object.
{
"items": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"nv": { "$ref": "#/definitions/nv" },
"metadata": { "$ref": "#/definitions/metadata" },
"status": { "$ref": "#/definitions/status" },
"nodes": { "$ref": "#/definitions/nodes" },
"edges": { "$ref": "#/definitions/edges" }
},
"minProperties": 1,
"maxProperties": 1
}
}
Edit: Previously, I recommended dependencies, but then realized that this is better.
Assert that the array contains a required object
To do this, you need to assert that the array contains an object that has a required property.
{ "contains": { "type": "object", "required": ["nv"] } }
You'll have to combine this pattern in allOf to express additional required items.
{
"allOf": [
{ "contains": { "type": "object", "required": ["nv"] } },
{ "contains": { "type": "object", "required": ["metadata"] } },
{ "contains": { "type": "object", "required": ["status"] } }
]
}
Conditionally assert that the array contains a required object
The tricky part here is getting all the nested contains and properties in the if to be able to assert that the "name" is a certain value. The then just uses the same pattern we used above to assert than an object is required in the array.
{
"if": {
"type": "array",
"contains": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"metadata": {
"type": "array",
"contains": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"name": { "const": "nodes" }
},
"required": ["name"]
}
}
},
"required": ["metadata"]
}
},
"then": { "contains": { "type": "object", "required": ["nodes"] } }
}
The above example shows the "nodes" object being conditionally required. You'll need to repeat this pattern for the "edges" object and combine them with allOf. I suggest making use of definitions to help make this readable.
{
"allOf": [
{ "$ref": "#/definitions/if-metadata-has-nodes-then-require-nodes-object" },
{ "$ref": "#/definitions/if-metadata-has-edges-then-require-edges-object" }
]
}
I would suggest moving each of your "types" into a $defs to be referenced.
{
"$defs": {
"nvObj": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"nv": { "type": "array", "items": { "$ref": "#/$defs/nv" } }
},
"required": ["nv"]
},
... // other defitions
}
}
(I've updated the $ref to use $defs instead of definitions as this is the new keyword since draft 7.)
Then you can put many references into a oneOf.
{
"$defs": {
... // from above
},
"type": "array",
"items": {
"oneOf": [
{ "$ref": "#/$defs/nvObj" },
... // all of the other object definitions
]
}
}
You're right to avoid if/then/else for this case. oneOf is the best bet here.

JSON Schema - combining allOf and anyOf to make a flexible schema

In plain English, I want a flexible schema that will allow an object called "message" to contain a couple of string props, and then a 3rd prop that can be either a plain string or another object. So, if it's defined thusly, is this achieving the goal or is there a validation gotcha that I am missing?
"message": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"another": {
"$ref": "another.schema.json"
},
"#type": {
"type": "string",
"enum": [
"One",
"Two",
"Three"
]
}
},
"allOf": [
{
"$ref": "#message"
},
{
"anyOf": [
{
"plainolstring": {
"type": "string"
}
},
{
"obj": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"id": {
"type": "string"
},
"type": {
"type": "string"
}
}
}
}
]
}
]
}
}
And that would validate against either
"message": {
"another": "blah",
"#type": "foo",
"plainolstring": "sdfSR345w34"
}
or
"message": {
"another": "blah",
"#type": "foo",
"obj": {
"id":"sdfSR345w34",
"type": "guid"
}
}
Validating here against Schema v7 says that it is valid, but while it may be syntactically correct, would it achieve what I want?
Yes, anyOf will do what you want - except you have a syntax error by wrapping the subschemas with those properties "plainolstring" and "obj". The correct form would be:
{
"anyOf": [
{
"type": "string"
},
{
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"id": {
"type": "string"
},
"type": {
"type": "string"
}
}
}
]
}
Moreover, you don't even need the anyOf -- you can simplify that subschema to:
{
"type": ["string", "object"],
"properties": {
"id": {
"type": "string"
},
"type": {
"type": "string"
}
}
}
The properties keyword itself does not enforce that the type must be an object -- you need to use type for that. properties just says "if this is an object, this is the definition of those properties".

JSON Schema if-else condition complex scenario

{
"policyHolder": {
"fullName": "A"
},
"traveller": [
{
"fullName": "B",
"relationship": "Spouse"
},
{
"fullName": "A",
"relationship": "My Self"
}
]
}
In above json, I want to validate that
if "relationship" = "My Self" then fullName must match the fullName in policyHolder
A field relationship must exist in traveller array, else json is invalid
I have tried to create a json schema with if-else, allOf, etc. but nothing works which can do these validations but not able to.
Please help!!
Schema:
{
"type": "object",
"required": [
"policyHolder",
"traveller",
],
"properties": {
"policyHolder": {
"$id": "#/properties/policyHolder",
"type": "object",
"required": [
"fullName"
],
"properties": {
"fullName": {
"$id": "#/properties/policyHolder/properties/fullName",
"type": "string",
}
}
},
"traveller": {
"$id": "#/properties/traveller",
"type": "array",
"minItems": 1,
"items": {
"$id": "#/properties/traveller/items",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"fullName": {
"$ref": "#/properties/policyHolder/properties/fullName"
},
"relationship": {
"$id": "#/properties/traveller/items/properties/relationship",
"type": "string",
}
},
"required": [
"fullName",
"relationship"
],
}
}
}
}```
It's your first requirement that you're going to have the most trouble with. JSON Schema doesn't support validation of data against data elsewhere in the instance. It's a highly discussed topic, but nothing has been adopted yet. I suggest you verify this with a little code.
For the second, I would suggest you extract some of your subschemas into definitions rather than trying to muck about with IDs. IDs are typically more beneficial if you're referencing them from other documents or if you use short (like single-word) IDs. Defining the ID as its location in the document is redundant; most processors will handle this automatically.
{
"type": "object",
"required": [
"policyHolder",
"traveller",
],
"definitions": {
"person": {
"type": "object"
"properties": {
"fullName": {"type": "string"}
},
"required": ["fullName"]
},
"relationship": { "enum": [ ... ] } // list possible relationships
},
"properties": {
"policyHolder": { "$ref": "#/definitions/person" },
"traveller": {
"type": "array",
"minItems": 1,
"items": {
"allOf": [
{ "$ref": "#/definitions/person" },
{
"properties": {
"relationship": { "$ref": "#/definitions/relationship" }
},
"required": ["relationship"]
}
]
}
}
}
}
(I extracted the relationship into its own enum definition, but this is really optional. You can leave it inline, or even an unrestricted string if you don't have a defined set of relationships.)
This can't currently be done with JSON Schema. All JSON Schema keywords can only operate on one value at a time. There's a proposal for adding a $data keyword that would enable doing this kind of validation, but I don't think it's likely to be adopted. $data would work like $ref except it references the JSON being validated rather than referencing the schema.
Here's what how you would solve your problem with $data.
{
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"policyHolder": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"fullName": { "type": "string" }
}
},
"traveler": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"fullName": { "type": "string" },
"relationship": { "type": "string" }
},
"if": {
"properties": {
"relationship": { "const": "My Self" }
}
},
"then": {
"properties": {
"fullName": { "const": { "$data": "#/policyHolder/fullName" } }
}
}
}
}
}
}
Without $data, you will have to do this validation in code or change your data structure so that it isn't necessary.

JSON validation against JSON schemas: Why is this obvious JSON data not failing validation

This JSON file should fail validation but it does not. Someone tell me why.
Plug the below json data and schema into this web site, validate,
http://json-schema-validator.herokuapp.com
and I get the same results in the Mule Validate JSON Schema. Its obviously does not comply with the schema (i added some fields, I misspelled some fields, the date-time value is not a real date time) but yet it does not fail it. Can someone tell me why?
JSON Schema:
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-04/schema#",
"id": "http://hud.gov/ocio/xsd/esb/serviceauditingframework/2.0#",
"definitions": {
"serviceAuditLogData": {
"type": "object",
"title": "serviceAuditLogData",
"required": [
"serviceRequestTimestamp",
"sourceSystem"
],
"properties": {
"auditId": {
"type": "string"
},
"serviceRequestTimestamp": {
"type": "string",
"format": "date-time"
},
"serviceProvider": {
"type": "string"
},
"serviceProviderVersion": {
"type": "string"
},
"serviceProviderTimestamp": {
"type": "string",
"format": "date-time"
},
"eventType": {
"type": "string"
},
"eventDetail": {
"type": "string"
},
"hostName": {
"type": "string"
},
"sourceSystem": {
"type": "string"
},
"authenticationId": {
"type": "string"
},
"endUserId": {
"type": "string"
},
"inputData": {
"type": "string"
}
},
"propertiesOrder": [
"auditId",
"serviceRequestTimestamp",
"serviceProvider",
"serviceProviderVersion",
"serviceProviderTimestamp",
"eventType",
"eventDetail",
"hostName",
"sourceSystem",
"authenticationId",
"endUserId",
"inputData"
]
}
}
}
JSON Data
{
"serviceAuditLogData": {
"junk":"asdfasdf",
"serviceRequestTimestamp": "2004-09-29T12:58:31.470Z",
"serviceProvider": "FLQS",
"serviceProviderVersion": "v1.0.1",
"audit_id": "17f24136-2494-4bf8-9d3b-9baafaae0cc9",
"serviceProviderTimestamp": "2012-11-04T21:44:57.997Z",
"eventType": "Query Pool",
"eventDetail": "default pool",
"hostName": "esb-d-srv1.",
"sourceSystem": "LRS",
"authenticationId": "EsbLrsAccount",
"endUserId": "H574857",
"inputData": "L234234234, L32453462345, L23452346"
}
}
It does not fail because your schema does not enforce any constraint. Notice that definitions is not a jsonschema keyword that constraints validation. It is normally used to place sub-schemas that are re-used in other parts of the schema definition. Thus, to start with, you should change the definitions keyword for properties.
Another common misunderstanding with jsonschema is related to the properties keyword. Let's take the following example:
{
"type" : "object",
"properties" : {
"key1" : {
"type" : "string"
}
}
}
You must read it as: json must be an object, and in the case that it contains a key equal to key1, its value must be a string. According to that the following two json objects are valid:
{
"key2":12
}
And:
{
"key1":"sdf"
}
Finally, related to date-time format, you must check the section 6 of RFC3339 to be sure you have a valid date-time. And in any case, the implementation of formats is not compulsory in jsonschema validators.
Thanks #jruizaranguren I also learned that I needed to place
"additionalProperties": false, and "required": to make sure that whats' being passed in the API is what's expected.
The below is how I solved my problem.
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-04/schema#",
"type": "object",
"definitions": {
"serviceAuditLogData": {
"type": "object",
"additionalProperties": false,
"required": [
"auditCorrelationId",
"serviceRequestTimestamp",
"serviceProvider",
"serviceProviderVersion",
"serviceProviderTimestamp",
"eventType",
"hostName",
"sourceSystem",
"authenticationId"
],
"properties": {
"auditCorrelationId": {
"type": "string"
},
"serviceRequestTimestamp": {
"type": "string",
"format": "date-time"
},
"serviceProvider": {
"type": "string"
},
"serviceProviderVersion": {
"type": "string"
},
"serviceProviderTimestamp": {
"type": "string",
"format": "date-time"
},
"eventType": {
"type": "string"
},
"eventDetail": {
"type": "string"
},
"hostName": {
"type": "string"
},
"sourceSystem": {
"type": "string"
},
"authenticationId": {
"type": "string"
},
"endUserId": {
"type": "string"
},
"inputData": {
"type": "string"
}
}
}
},
"additionalProperties": false,
"required": [
"serviceAuditLogData"
],
"properties": {
"serviceAuditLogData": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/serviceAuditLogData"
}
}
}