I have a multipart/form-data POST in an API endpoint which takes some key/value strings, and a file upload via the key files.
I believe I have defined it correctly in OpenAPI;
"requestBody": {
"required": true,
"content": {
"multipart/form-data": {
"schema": {
"properties": {
"file": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string",
"format": "binary"
}
},
"myKey1": {
"type": "string"
},
"myKey2": {
"type": "string"
}
}
},
"examples": {
"value": ?
}
}
}
},
However, I am unsure how I can describe an example for a multipart/form-data in the examples field.
I assume I don't need to represent the file (although that would be a bonus) but just the myKey1 and myKey2 keys and values.
Your OAS definition seems to be correct. You can define the examples as shown below:
"requestBody": {
"required": true,
"content": {
"multipart/form-data": {
"schema": {
"properties": {
"file": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string",
"format": "binary"
},
"example": [
{
"externalValue": "http://www.africau.edu/images/default/sample.pdf"
}
]
},
"myKey1": {
"type": "string",
"example": "myKey1Example"
},
"myKey2": {
"type": "string",
"example": "myKey2Example"
}
}
}
}
}
},
externalValue can be added to point the sample file URL in Open API Specification. This is only for the document purpose.
However, it will not be displayed in the swagger-ui as swagger-ui does not support it yet. It is tracked in [1].
[1] https://github.com/swagger-api/swagger-ui/issues/5433
Related
I'm trying to create 2 separate schemas for some json files which serve as scripts.
One schema should contain all commands possible, while another one should only contain a subset of commands.
My thinking was I create minimal schema first:
{
"$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"$schema": {},
"commands": {
"type": "array",
"items":
{
"title": "One step of the migration",
"type": "object",
"minProperties": 1,
"maxProperties": 1,
"properties": {
"simple_command_1": {"type": "object"},
"simple_command_2": {"type": "object"},
}
}
}
}
}
which would validate json files like this:
{
"$schema": "../../migration_schema_v1.json",
"commands": [
{"simple_command_1": {}},
{"simple_command_1": {}},
{"simple_command_2": {}},
{"simple_command_2": {}},
]
I'm trying to avoid using the word extend but... I want to be able to create a second schema that has every command the first one has and an additional advanced_command_3. So I created this:
"$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
"$ref": "/migration_schema_v1.json#/",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"foo": {
"type": "object",
"title": "this does work"
},
"commands": {
"items":
{
"properties": {
"advanced_command_3": {"type": "object"}
}
}
}
}
}
I'm able to refer this second schema, and it does inherit everything from the first one, but I'm not really able to add any properties (commands)
I was however able to add additional properties in the root, next to "commands". See "foo" property.
Using allOf[] or $ref in the sub-property doesn't seem to make a difference.
Am I getting this all wrong?
Thanks!
I would actually break this into three schemas. The first contains the primary definition for your data, including all of the valid commands.
{
"$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
"$id": "https://example.com/definitions",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"$schema": {},
"commands": {
"type": "array",
"items":
{
"title": "One step of the migration",
"type": "object",
"minProperties": 1,
"maxProperties": 1,
"properties": {
"simple_command_1": {"type": "object"},
"simple_command_2": {"type": "object"},
"advanced_command_3": {"type": "object"}
}
}
}
}
}
The other two are your simple and advanced schemas. They work by defining that only the possibilities of the commands you want are required then referencing back to the definition schema to get the rest of the requirements.
{
"$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
"$id": "https://example.com/simple",
"$ref": "definitions",
"properties": {
"commands": {
"items": {
"anyOf": [
{ "required": ["simple_command_1"] },
{ "required": ["simple_command_2"] }
]
}
}
}
}
{
"$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
"$id": "https://example.com/advanced",
"$ref": "definitions",
"properties": {
"commands": {
"items": {
"anyOf": [
{ "required": ["simple_command_1"] },
{ "required": ["simple_command_2"] },
{ "required": ["advanced_command_3"] }
]
}
}
}
}
I think this setup contains minimal repetition.
At this point you might be able to get away with what you're wanting to do with the extends thing. You'd have to extract the commands requirements in the simple schema into a $defs keyword and reference them from the advanced schema.
{
"$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
"$id": "https://example.com/simple",
"$defs": {
"simpleCommands": {
"anyOf": [
{ "required": ["simple_command_1"] },
{ "required": ["simple_command_2"] }
]
}
},
"$ref": "definitions",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"commands": {
"items": { "$ref": "#/$defs/simpleCommands" }
}
}
}
{
"$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
"$id": "https://example.com/advanced",
"$ref": "definitions",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"commands": {
"items": {
"anyOf": [
{ "$ref" : "simple#/$defs/simpleCommands" },
{ "required": ["advanced_command_3"] }
]
}
}
}
}
I haven't tested this though.
I've been struggling with "switch" in JSON Schema. Went through couple of GitHub and SO discussions on this topic but haven't find solution.
My intention is to vary "payload" object properties based on "id" enum that will have 30 different mappings ("payload" definitions per enum "id").
For example first message json object will have amount and other properties but for the demo purpose let's go only with one property (amout):
{
"message": {
"id": 1,
"correlationId": "a0011e83-280e-4085-b0f1-691059aaae61",
"payload": {
"amount": 100
}
}
}
And second json:
{
"message": {
"id": 2,
"correlationId": "a0011e83-280e-4085-b0f1-691059aaae61",
"payload": {
"code": "xyz"
}
}
}
Is there a way to build JSON Schema (draft 7 or any other) in this manner?
What you're asking for is a fairly common requirement. Using oneOf/anyOf should get you where you want.
In those cases where the alternatives are mutually exclusive (due to the different "id" values), I'm in favour of anyOf to allow Schema Validator to stop checking when encountering the first matching subschema – whereas oneOf implies that all other alternatives must not match, e.g. in case of "id": 1 a validator would only have to check against the first subschema in an anyOf to indicate that it is valid while for oneOf it'd have to check against the other 29 to ensure that those aren't also valid. But you may find oneOf more expressive for human consumers of your schema.
For your particular scenario, I'd imagine something along the lines of the following schema:
{
"type": "object",
"required": ["message"],
"properties": {
"message": {
"type": "object",
"required": ["id", "correlationId", "payload"],
"properties": {
"id": { "enum": [1, 2, 3] },
"correlationId": { "type": "string" },
"payload": { "type": "object" }
},
"anyOf": [
{
"properties": {
"id": { "const": 1 },
"payload": { "$ref": "#/definitions/payload1" }
}
},
{
"properties": {
"id": { "const": 2 },
"payload": { "$ref": "#/definitions/payload2" }
}
},
{
"properties": {
"id": { "const": 3 },
"payload": { "$ref": "#/definitions/payload3" }
}
},
]
}
},
"definitions": {
"payload1": {
"type": "object",
"required": ["amount"],
"properties": {
"amount": { "type": "integer" }
}
},
"payload2": {
"type": "object",
"required": ["code"],
"properties": {
"code": { "type": "string" }
}
},
"payload3": {
"type": "object",
"required": ["foo"],
"properties": {
"foo": { "type": "string" }
}
}
}
}
I wrote one JSON schema before, but now, as I am trying to make it a bit more advanced I get stuck.
(I am open to 'good practice' tips in the comments)
(Is the $id optional? should I remove it for simplicity in the example code?)
Goal:
I am trying to make a schema with an object definition (example_obj) that is recursively used. This object may only have 1 argument (or or and or value). But in the root of the json, I want to add 1 additional property.
json-schema
{
"definitions": {
"example_obj": {
"$id": "#/definitions/example_obj",
"type": "object",
"maxProperties": 1,
"properties": {
"or": {
"$id": "#/definitions/example_obj/properties/or",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"$id": "#/definitions/example_obj/properties/or/items",
"$ref": "#/definitions/example_obj"
}
},
"and": {
"$id": "#/definitions/example_obj/properties/and",
"type": "array",
"items": {
"$id": "#/definitions/example_obj/properties/and/items",
"$ref": "#/definitions/example_obj"
}
},
"value": {
"$id": "#/definitions/example_obj/properties/value",
"type": "string"
}
}
}
},
"type": "object",
"title": "The Root Schema",
"required": ["filter_version"],
"allOf": [
{
"$ref": "#/definitions/example_obj"
},
{
"properties": {
"filter_version": {
"$id": "#/properties/filter_version",
"type": "string",
"pattern": "^([0-9]+\\.[0-9]+)$"
}
}
}
]
}
json which I want to pass validation:
{
"filter_version": "1.0",
"or": [
{
"and": [
{
"value": "subject"
}
]
},
{
"or": [
{
"value": "another subject"
}
]
}
]
}
Issue:
When I try to extend example_obj for the root definition it seems to fail because the example_obj object does not allow more then 1 property by design.
In other words, it appears that every check for the number of argument that I add to example_obj is also performed on the additional property (i.e. filter_version).
Does anyone know where to place this check for 'exactly 1 argument' so that it is not evaluated on the root object?
Attempts:
I tried working with different ways of determining the requirements of example_obj, but with no success. Like with replacing "maxProperties": 1 with:
"oneOf": [
{
"required": [
"or"
]
},
{
"required": [
"and"
]
},
{
"required": [
"where"
]
},
{
"required": [
"where not"
]
}
],
Thanks in advance for any help!!
Checking my schema with the online schema validator.
(In the end I need to validate it in Python, in case it matters)
You can use oneOf instead of maxProperties to get around this.
{
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"filter_version": {
"type": "string",
"pattern": "^([0-9]+\\.[0-9]+)$"
}
},
"required": ["filter_version"],
"allOf": [{ "$ref": "#/definitions/example_obj" }],
"definitions": {
"example_obj": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"or": { "$ref": "#/definitions/example-obj-array" },
"and": { "$ref": "#/definitions/example-obj-array" },
"value": { "type": "string" }
},
"oneOf": [
{ "required": ["or"] },
{ "required": ["and"] },
{ "required": ["value"] }
]
},
"example-obj-array": {
"type": "array",
"items": { "$ref": "#/definitions/example_obj" }
}
}
}
P.S. You are using $id wrong. I know there is a tool out there that generates schemas like this and causes this confusion. The way $id is used here is a no-op. It doesn't hurt, but it doesn't do anything other than bloating your schema.
I am trying to match a patternProperties with a schema, like, here is the jsonschema text:
{
"$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.