The following is a sample schema to depict the issue
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
"type": "object",
"definitions": {
"person": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"age": {
"type": "string"
}
}
}
},
"properties": {
"child": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/person"
}
},
"required": [
"child"
],
"if": {
"properties": {
"person/age": {
"const": "3"
}
}
},
"then": {
"properties": {
"guardian": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/person"
}
},
"required": [
"guardian"
]
}
}
Is there a way to refer age inside the person object?
{"child":{"age":"3"}}. Should fail as guardian tag is missing
The above data should fail as the guardian object is missing.
Remember that if is just a regular schema validating against the instance. Just nest your properties like you would with any nested object structure.
{
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"child": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"age": { "const": "3" }
},
"required": ["age"]
}
},
"required": ["child"]
}
Note that the type and required keywords are necessary to not inadvertently trigger the then schema. For example, with out them, these would cause the then to trigger when you probably didn't want it to.
{}
{ "child": null }
{ "child": {} }
Related
I have searched and haven't quite found a solution.
I would like to do a schema as so:
...
"bag": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"anyOf": [
{"$ref": "#/definitions/obj1"},
{"$ref": "#/definitions/obj2"},
{"$ref": "#/definitions/obj3"}
]
},
"required": ["items"],
"minItems": 1
}
...
With objects defined:
...
"definitions": {
"obj1": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"obj1": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"a": {
"type": "string"
}
},
"required": ["a"]
}
}
},
"obj2": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"obj1": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"b": {
"type": "string"
}
},
"required": ["b"]
}
}
},
"obj3": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"obj1": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"c": {
"type": "string"
}
},
"required": ["c"]
}
}
}
}
...
Ideally, I would like to validate against a schema that looks like this:
...
"bag": [
{
"obj1": {"a": "test1"}
},
{
"obj3": {"c": "test1"}
}
]
...
In this context, if someone passes obj1 and obj3 into bag. By the schema, obj1 requires property a and obj3 requires property c.
I'm having trouble actually executing this as the validation doesn't seem to enforce correctly.
Any tips? Thanks in advance.
From your current schema and example data, I can't tell exactly what you want, but making an educated guess...
I suspect you want to use oneOf as opposed to anyOf.
anyOf allows you to match multiple subschemas, and it looks like you only want to allow matching one of the subschemas, obj1, 2, or 3.
This would help you debug the issue, but it's not the cause of your always passing validation.
For each definition subschema, you need to add "additionalProperties": false.
Here's the key: JSON Schema is constraints based, meaning anything not constrained is allowed.
additionalProperties restricts the allowed properties of an object to those defined in properties (and patternProperties).
Here's the example schema. You can see it working with your instance here: https://jsonschema.dev/s/MjBUp
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema",
"definitions": {
"obj1": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"obj1": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"a": {
"type": "string"
}
},
"required": ["a"]
}
},
"additionalProperties": false
},
"obj2": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"obj1": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"b": {
"type": "string"
}
},
"required": ["b"]
}
},
"additionalProperties": false
}
},
"type": "array",
"items": {
"anyOf": [
{"$ref": "#/definitions/obj1"},
{"$ref": "#/definitions/obj2"}
]
},
"required": ["items"],
"minItems": 1
}
I want to define a JsonSchema with a customProperty in it, this property follows some rules, so in order to validate those, I need to define a JsonSchema that will validate it.
So far I've managed to describe it properly, but it only works for the first level of attributes, and I want it to be recursive...
From my comprehension it should work, I probably made a mistake I'm unable to see and at this point I don't know if it's a bug, impossible, or stupid...
I believe redefining every type should be a possibility , but obviously I'd rather not.
Here is an example of the Json I want to validate
{
"title": "TheObject",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"aString": {
"type": "string",
"myCustomProperty": {}
},
"anObjet": {
"type": "object",
"myCustomProperty": {},
"properties": {
"anotherObject": {
"type": "object",
"myCustomProperty": {}, //if this line is removed it still validates which I don't want
"properties": {}
}
}
}
}
}
and here is the JsonSchema I've done so far:
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"title": {"type": "string"},
"type": {"type": "string","enum": ["object"]},
"properties": {
"type": "object",
"patternProperties": {
".*": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/Field"
}
}
}
},
"definitions": {
"Field": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"type": {
"type": "string"
},
"myCustomProperty": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/myCustomProperty"
},
"patternProperties": {
"^(?!myCustomProperty).*": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/Field"
}
}
},
"required": [
"type",
"myCustomProperty"
]
},
"myCustomProperty": {
//Some rules
}
}
}
I found a solution, I wasn't far from what I wanted after all.
In my definition of "Field", I am describing an object that defines an object, and I was missing the "properties" field. In which I had to put my recursive reference.
The right jsonSchema is the following :
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"title": {
"type": "string"
},
"type": {
"type": "string",
"enum": [
"object"
]
},
"properties": {
"type": "object",
"patternProperties": {
".*": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/Field"
}
}
}
},
"definitions": {
"Field": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"type": {
"type": "string"
},
"myCustomProperty": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/myCustomProperty"
},
"properties": { <==================== here
"type": "object",
"patternProperties": {
".*": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/Field"
}
}
}
},
"required": [
"type",
"myCustomProperty"
]
},
"myCustomProperty": {/*rules*/}
}
}
So far it works as expected, but if someone has a more elegant suggestion please share!
I am trying to match a patternProperties with a schema, like, here is the jsonschema text:
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-04/schema#",
"definitions": {
"fabric_id": {
"enum": [
"ADMIN",
"COPPER",
"NETWORK",
"STORAGE",
"STORAGE2",
"TENANT"
]
},
"fabrics": {
"additionalProperties": false,
"patternProperties": {
"[A-Z0-9-]*": {
"additionalProperties": false,
"properties": {
"description": {
"type": "string"
},
"fabric_id": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/fabric_id",
"type": "string"
}
},
"required": [
"description",
"fabric_id"
],
"type": "object"
}
},
"type": "object"
}
},
"description": "fabrics spec",
"properties": {
"fabrics": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/fabrics"
}
},
"required": [
"fabrics"
],
"title": "network fabric",
"type": "object"
}
and here is my input json file:
{
"fabrics": {
"ADMIN": {
"description": "Primary bonded pair on the bigswitches.",
"fabric_id": "ADMIN"
},
"COPPER": {
"description": "Primary IPMI fabric on the tor switches.",
"fabric_id": "COPPER"
}
}
}
I can't figure out how to validate the patternProperty against the fabric_id enum? The pattern object has fabric_id in it, and that is able to reference the fabric_id enum in the definitions section. I'd like to have that same $ref for the "[A-z0-9-]*" pattern, but I just can't make it work. Is this possible?
This schema does is the best you can do. The only thing it can't do is constrain the property name to match the value of "fabric_id". Unfortunately, this is not possible with JSON Schema.
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-06/schema#",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"fabrics": { "$ref": "#/definitions/fabrics" }
},
"required": ["fabrics"],
"definitions": {
"fabric_id": {
"enum": ["ADMIN", "COPPER", "NETWORK"]
},
"fabrics": {
"type": "object",
"propertyNames": { "$ref": "#/definitions/fabric_id" },
"patternProperties": {
".*": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"description": { "type": "string" },
"fabric_id": { "$ref": "#/definitions/fabric_id" }
},
"required": ["description", "fabric_id"]
}
}
}
}
}
Sadly, I don't believe this is possible with draft-4 of JSON Schema.
If you can upgrade to 6 or 7 (+), you can make this possible.
propertyNames: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-handrews-json-schema-validation-01#section-6.5.8
If the instance is an object, this keyword validates if every property name in the instance validates against the provided schema. Note the property name that the schema is testing will always be a string.
An example of how this can be used can be found at https://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-org.github.io/issues/77
...
"fooProperties": {
"propertyNames": {
"$comment": "Need to anyOf these or else the enum and pattern conflict",
"anyOf": [
{"enum": ["foo1", "foo2"]},
{"pattern": "foo[A-Z][a-z0-9]*"}
]
}
},
...
Sorry I don't have time to update your schema to follow this, but hopefully I sufficiently explained this for you to adapt it.
if you're unable to migrate beyond draft-4... well you'll have to do that validation aspect manually outside of JSON Schema.
I've been working on a json schema to validate the answers from one of my webservices.
The answer is splitted in two properties: data and status. If status.code is set to 0, then data will have to respect a specific schema. Else, if status.code is set to -1, data won't be read, so I don't want to check if it respects the schema.
Here is the schema :
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/schema#",
"id": "file://registration.json",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"status": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/classes/status"
}
},
"anyOf": [
{
"$ref": "#/definitions/conditions/status-is-ok"
},
{
"$ref": "#/definitions/conditions/status-is-nok"
}
],
"definitions": {
"classes": {
"status": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"code": {
"type": "integer"
},
"message": {
"type": "string"
}
},
"required": [
"code",
"message"
]
},
"data": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"propertyA": {
"type": "#/definitions/classes/metadatauser"
},
"propertyB": {
"type": "#/definitions/classes/membreinfo"
}
},
"required": ["propertyA", "propertyB"]
}
},
"conditions": {
"status-is-ok": {
"status": {
"properties": {
"code": 0
}
},
"data": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/classes/data"
}
},
"status-is-nok": {
"status": {
"properties": {
"code": -1
}
},
"data": {
"type": "object"
}
}
}
}
}
And here's an example of what should not be validated:
{
"data": {},
"status": {
"code": 0,
"message": "OK"
}
}
At the moment, this portion of code passes, and I don't know why.
You've got a few things wrong here, so I'll try to explain all of them. You were on the right track!
"properties": {
"code": 0
}
The value of "properties" MUST be an object. Each value of this object
MUST be a valid JSON Schema.
http://json-schema.org/latest/json-schema-validation.html#rfc.section.6.5.4
You can't put the value you expect as the value for a property key.
You CAN however use the [const]1 keyword to achive a specific value validation.
"$ref": "#/definitions/conditions/status-is-ok"
...
"conditions": {
"status-is-ok": {
"status": {
"properties": {
[The definitions] keyword's value MUST be an object. Each member value of this
object MUST be a valid JSON Schema.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-handrews-json-schema-validation-01#section-9
This means that you need to treat each value of each key in a defintions as a JSON Schema. If you had a JSON Schema where you did not nest "status" inside a properties object, no validation would take place. The same is true for "data".
(Strictly, according to the definitions section of the spec, you MUST NOT nest schemas deeply in the definitions object, but this seems to be supported by some implementations anyway, and resolves using the correct resolution rules. Prefixing may be better.)
The complete fixed schema is as follows.
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/schema#",
"id": "file://registration.json",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"status": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/classes/status"
}
},
"anyOf": [
{
"$ref": "#/definitions/conditions/status-is-ok"
},
{
"$ref": "#/definitions/conditions/status-is-nok"
}
],
"definitions": {
"classes": {
"status": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"code": {
"type": "integer"
},
"message": {
"type": "string"
}
},
"required": [
"code",
"message"
]
},
"data": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
},
"required": [
"propertyA",
"propertyB"
]
}
},
"conditions": {
"status-is-ok": {
"properties": {
"status": {
"properties": {
"code": {
"const": 0
}
}
},
"data": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/classes/data"
},
},
"additionalProperties": false
},
"status-is-nok": {
"properties": {
"status": {
"properties": {
"code": {
"const": -1
}
}
},
"data": {
"type": "object"
},
},
"additionalProperties": false
}
}
}
}
Please do let me know if any of this doesn't make sense.
Feel free to join the JSON Schema slack server should you want to discuss any aspects further! Happy to also comment here.
I need to build a json schema (draft 4) that requires a property based on the presence of a property in another nested object. I already searched and tried a lot of things (anyOf, oneOf, not, dependencies) with no luck.
Maybe this is not possible to in json schema?
This is my simplified schema:
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-04/schema#",
"type": "object",
"required": ["dog"],
"properties": {
"dog": {
"type": "object",
"required": ["bananas"],
"properties": {
"bananas": { "$ref": "bananas.json" },
"thing": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"total": { "type": "string" }
}
}
}
}
}
}
And this is bananas.json
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-04/schema#",
"type": "object",
"required": ["banana"],
"definitions": {
"non-empty-string": {
"type": "string",
"minLength": 1
}
},
"properties": {
"banana": {
"type": "array",
"minItems": 1,
"items": {
"type": "object",
"required": ["unit"],
"properties": {
"unit": { "type": "string" },
"thing": {
"type": "object",
"anyOf": [
{ "required": [ "tax_transfers" ] },
{ "required": [ "tax_retentions" ] }
],
"properties": {
"tax_transfers": {
"type": "object",
"required": ["tax_transfer"],
"properties": {
"tax_transfer": {
"type": "array",
"minItems": 1,
"items": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"rate": { "type": "string" }
}
}
}
}
},
"tax_retentions": {
"type": "object",
"required": ["tax_retention"],
"properties": {
"tax_retention": {
"type": "array",
"minItems": 1,
"items": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"rate": { "type": "string" }
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
I need that when one or more objects in the array have a 'thing' property (at bananas -> banana -> thing).
Then the property 'thing' at (dog -> thing) should be required.
Any help would be really appreciated.
You need two things to express your constraint. The first is "contains" and the other is "implication". I've organized each in the definitions section.
Contains
The items keyword allows us to require that all items in an array are valid against a schema. If it is not true that all of the items in the array are not valid against the schema, then we know that at least one item is valid.
{
"not": {
"items": { "not": { ... schema ... } }
}
}
If you are able to upgrade to JSON Schema draft-06, a contains keyword was added to make this much easier.
{
"contains": { ... schema ... }
}
Implication
Implication allows you to do something like a conditional. The condition schema implies the constraint schema if either the condition is true, or the constraint is true (or both are true). It's effectively the same as saying, if the condition is true then the constraint must also be true.
{
"anyOf": [
{ "not": { ... condition schema ... } },
{ ... constraint schema ... }
]
}
JSON Schema draft-07 adds the if-then-else keywords in attempt to address this case better. I personally dislike the way this was done enough that I'll stick with the implication pattern for this kind of thing, but here it is in case you want to try it.
{
"if": { ... schema ... },
"then": { ... schema ... },
"else": { ... schema ... }
}
All together
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-04/schema#",
"type": "object",
"required": ["dog"],
"properties": {
"dog": {
"type": "object",
"required": ["bananas"],
"properties": {
"bananas": { "$ref": "bananas.json" },
"thing": { "type": "object" }
}
}
},
"allOf": [
{ "$ref": "#/definitions/banana-things-implies-dog-things" }
],
"definitions": {
"banana-has-things": {
"properties": {
"dog": {
"properties": {
"bananas": {
"properties": {
"banana": {
"not": {
"items": { "not": { "required": ["things"] } }
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
},
"banana-things-implies-dog-things": {
"anyOf": [
{ "not": { "$ref": "#/definitions/banana-has-things" }},
{
"properties": {
"dog": { "required": ["things"] }
}
}
]
}
}
}