Enable 'Format' and 'Content' assertions during schema validation

[JemDay]

Introduced more validation configuration options to apply during schema validation.

These changes have only currently been made to the query-parameter validation as a proof-of-concept, if this looks like an appropriate approach I will apply it more broadly - as such please don't merge at this time.

Included are some additional unit tests for query parameters to demonstrate the enforcement of 'date' and 'date-time' forma ts.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 93.81443% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 99.56%. Comparing base (3d64c93) to head (b06c136).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
parameters/validate_parameter.go	80.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
helpers/schema_compiler.go	95.45%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #116      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.74%   99.56%   -0.19%     
==========================================
  Files          29       30       +1     
  Lines        3163     3203      +40     
==========================================
+ Hits         3155     3189      +34     
- Misses          8       14       +6     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	99.56% <93.81%> (-0.19%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[ccoVeille]

Maybe this

Suggested change

	// Sanity
	if opt != nil {
	opt(o)
	}
	if opt == nil {
	// Sanity
	continue
	}
	opt(o)

The sanity is in the nil check. The comment is misleading otherwise

[JemDay]

opted (no pun intended) to remove the comment but leave the logic as-is ... seemed more logical to me.

[daveshanley]

If you can bump those couple of lines, we can add this!

[JemDay]

If you can bump those couple of lines, we can add this!

Will take a look.

How would I trigger those checks ... they seemed to trigger after the PR got approved

[JemDay]

Let me know how far down this rabbit hole you'd like me to go.

If I'm ready this correctly the coverage failed coverage results from some very small edge-cases around error checks (where in the past there were no checks!) - coercing tests to get the desired coverage is presumably doable but is that a blocker ?