I want to import this schema, and redefine the following (simplified) definition so that its value is a string.
"date-variable": {
"properties": {
"date-parts": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": ["string", "number"]
}
}
}
}
}
}
Is that possible? If yes, how?
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.
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": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/person"
}
},
"required": [
"guardian"
]
}
}
Is there a way to refer age inside the person object?
{"child":{"age":"3"}}. Should fail as guardian tag is missing
The above data should fail as the guardian object is missing.
Remember that if is just a regular schema validating against the instance. Just nest your properties like you would with any nested object structure.
{
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"child": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"age": { "const": "3" }
},
"required": ["age"]
}
},
"required": ["child"]
}
Note that the type and required keywords are necessary to not inadvertently trigger the then schema. For example, with out them, these would cause the then to trigger when you probably didn't want it to.
{}
{ "child": null }
{ "child": {} }
I'm trying to use jsonschema to validate some simple json. I have the following:
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"outputs": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"ANYSTRING": {
"type": "string",
"properties": {
"label": { "type": "string" },
"otherLabel": { "type": "string" }
}
}
}
}
}
}
Essentially, I want any of the following to be valid:
{
"outputs": {
"this is a sample string": { "label": "test" },
"another string": { },
"and one last one": { "otherLabel": "dummy" }
}
}
(How) Can I have this wildcard string property denoted above as "ANYSTRING"?
I suppose you could use additionalProperties. Side note: a thing of type “string” can’t have properties, but “object” can.
"outputs": {
"type": "object",
"additionalProperties": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"label": { "type": "string" }
}
}
}
Shawn Silverman (JsonSchema Slack channel)
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"] }
}
}
]
}
}
}
Is it a valid json schema:
object:
$ref: '#/definitions/object'
Would you recommend to use such format?
Self references are allowed and useful. However, your example looks like it would just be a referential infinite loop. Here is an example of a JSON Schema that uses recursive references to define a tree structure of unlimited depth.
{
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"name": { "type": "string" },
"tree": { "$ref": "#/definitions/tree" }
},
"definitions": {
"tree": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"value": { "type": "string" },
"branches": {
"type": "array",
"items": { "$ref": "#/definitions/tree" },
"minItems": 1
}
},
"required": ["value"]
}
}
}