Support dictionary-like type (additionalProperties) #178
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
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #178 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 97.00% 97.00%
=======================================
Files 14 14
Lines 500 500
Branches 115 115
=======================================
Hits 485 485
Misses 15 15 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
Thanks! |
exoego
changed the title
exoego
changed the title
additionalProperties)
exoego
changed the title
additionalProperties)
|
@nicvw Thanks for your contribution. This was released in v0.13.0. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
A possible implementation to address Issue 132. This will not add a
propertiesorrequiredfield ifadditionalPropertiesexists on the base schema. It will still update those fields if they are already present on the base, I feel that is a decent compromise to resolve that issue and not interfere with schemas where all three fields are intentionally present.