This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 14, 2023. It is now read-only.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Schema update for relational data #1709
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Schema update for relational data #1709
Changes from 3 commits
88b1268
cb32b5c
008154e
e359429
f2d7f0b
e8a79c7
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you 'ref' back to the main schema here? This object should confirm to the profile schema, and can contain relationships itself which isn't represented here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, hadn't realised a relationship could contain another relationship. I can't work out how to refer back to the main schema, but I have added a relationships section at the bottom, which seems to work. Not ideal to have fields, constraints and relationships defined twice though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you do something like this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think so. From how I understand it you have to have some initial entries in the schema first, then they can refer to definitions below. I don't think you can effectively go straight to the definitions. I tried the above anyhow but it didn't work for me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As discussed @sl-slaing, our aim is to not change the profile format itself and to fix this in the schema. We also don't want to have fields, constraints and relationships defined in two places. The Recursion section of the JSON Schema Reference should help, just can't figure it out at the moment.