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

$ref objects are legal in all path-item objects #3676

Conversation

karenetheridge
Copy link
Member

See #2657 - this was added to the specification but not the schema.

@karenetheridge karenetheridge changed the title $ref objects are legal in path-item objects $ref objects are legal in all path-item objects Mar 23, 2024
See OAI#2657 - this was added to the specification but not the schema.
@handrews
Copy link
Member

@karenetheridge this should not be changed in the 3.1 schema, which I fixed to only allow Path Item Objects in #3355 (matching the 3.1.1 change in #2655).

This change would only go in the not-yet-existing 3.2 schema. I'm not sure whether we add that on this branch or on main (my recollection is that the 3.1 schema was added on main), but it should be clarified once we figure out our new branching policy.

I think for now it's better to close this, we should follow your advice and sync the 3.0 and 3.1 schemas (#3400) first, not to mention figure out how to deploy and set proper $ids for the accumulated changes in GitHub (#150, #2500) and then worry about setting up 3.2's schema. Otherwise it will be a 3rd out-of-sync schema given the current mess.

@karenetheridge
Copy link
Member Author

ok I was assuming that schemas/3.1/schema.yaml here actually was the 3.2 schema, but just hadn't been renamed yet. But could it really be true that no schema changes have been made between 3.1.x and 3.2 yet?

@karenetheridge
Copy link
Member Author

If someone could put a "blocked" label on this PR, I'd be much obliged.. and then I'll rebase it with the real 3.2 schema when it springs into existence.

@handrews
Copy link
Member

@karenetheridge replacing my previous comments - I've been conveying how the process worked for 3.1. We can definitely change it, but I'm going to leave that to the TSC. Perhaps changing this to a "draft" PR would capture the "blocked" status?

@karenetheridge karenetheridge marked this pull request as draft March 24, 2024 23:20
@karenetheridge
Copy link
Member Author

karenetheridge commented Mar 24, 2024

Setting to draft. I would highly recommend changing the process so the schema is kept current with the specification, and ideally change the schema in the same PR as spec changes (we don't have to force contributors to make schema changes, as someone else can add another commit to make that change if desired). But having the schema-in-waiting available would be enormously helpful for someone creating a beta implementation of an upcoming version before it is released.

e.g. right now I'm looking at what's changed in the spec for 3.2, and I'm having to make those changes in the schema myself - which would be duplicate work!

@handrews
Copy link
Member

I've reworked the issues tracking schema management so that no one has to slog through over a decade of stale comments:

@ralfhandl
Copy link
Contributor

@handrews
Copy link
Member

@karenetheridge since we're backing the spec change out (#3734, #4094) and it would need to be done in a new 3.2 schema anyway, I'm going to reluctantly close this. 😭

Even if we make a different change to improve the Path Item Object $ref, it will probably require a different schema change to describe it.

@handrews handrews closed this Sep 14, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants