Make response contentType required in JSON Schema, regenerate TM schema #1776
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
relu91
approved these changes
Feb 27, 2023
egekorkan
approved these changes
Feb 27, 2023
Good point as well. Just that it might be a bit annoying to deal with it with all possible cases from validation point of view (there is data schema but no contentType etc) |
This was referenced Mar 6, 2023
egekorkan
added
Editorial
|
Call of 22.03: Merging since it is informative |
2 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Dealing with Discovery from TDDs, I noticed that the Thing Description JSON Schema document does not treat the
contentTypein theExpectedResponseclass as mandatory at the moment (see section 5.3.4.3).This PR aligns this part of the JSON Schema document with the specification. However, this change does have some implications for the discovery specification, as the TDD Thing Model contains
responseobjects that do not specify acontentType. Therefore, to achieve a valid Directory Thing Description, you would actually need to additionally specify acontentTypehere during the TM to TD conversion.In general, I suppose it could make sense to make the
contentTypeoptional in TD 2.0, since there are cases where omitting the Content-Type is a valid choice (e.g., if no body/payload is supposed to be included in the response).(Besides the TD Schema change, this PR also regenerates the TM schema and takes over a small change from 0bbcc5c.)