Remove project field by s-adamantine · Pull Request #68 · hypercerts-org/hypercerts-lexicon

s-adamantine · 2026-01-19T21:16:05Z

Summary by CodeRabbit

Schema Updates
- Simplified activity records by removing the project field; project relationships are now managed through collections, providing developers greater flexibility in structuring project-to-activity links
- Made hypercert field required in evidence records

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

changeset-bot · 2026-01-19T21:16:08Z

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 8d336b6

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package

Name	Type
@hypercerts-org/lexicon	Minor

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

coderabbitai · 2026-01-19T21:16:16Z

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This PR introduces a changeset that removes the project field from the activity claim schema and makes the hypercert field required in the evidence schema. The changes enforce separation of concerns by keeping activity records minimal and delegating project-related data management to collection lexicons.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Changeset Documentation `.changeset/wild-rivers-flow.md`	New minor version bump entry describing the schema changes, rationale for separation of concerns, and delegation of project relationship management to developers.
Activity Schema `lexicons/org/hypercerts/claim/activity.json`	Removed `project` property (AT-URI reference to project record) that previously enforced bidirectional linking between activities and projects. Minor formatting adjustment to `activityWeight` required fields array.
Evidence Schema `lexicons/org/hypercerts/claim/evidence.json`	Added `hypercert` field to the required fields list, making it mandatory alongside existing required fields (`content`, `title`, `createdAt`).

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes

Possibly related PRs

PR #33: Directly opposes these changes—adds the project property and activityWeight definitions to activity.json while this PR removes the project property.
PR #28: Modifies the evidence record's reference field by replacing/renaming hypercert with activity, directly conflicting with the requirement change here.
PR #34: Restructures and renames fields in evidence.json, potentially conflicting with the required fields modification in this PR.

Suggested reviewers

holkexyz
aspiers

Poem

🐰 A schema springs forth, lean and bright,
Projects drift free, collections take flight,
No bidirectional chains to constrain,
Developers choose how relationships sustain,
Activity minimal, evidence required true,
Schema separation—a hop-skip-and-boo! ✨

Important

Pre-merge checks failed

Please resolve all errors before merging. Addressing warnings is optional.

❌ Failed checks (1 error)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Lexicon Documentation Sync	❌ Error	README.md and ERD.puml are not synchronized with JSON schema changes: activity.json's removed 'project' field is still documented in README.md line 188 and ERD.puml line 68; evidence.json's new required 'hypercert' field is missing from both README.md and ERD.puml.	Remove 'project' field from README.md activity table (line 188) and ERD.puml activity entity (line 68). Add 'hypercert' field to README.md evidence table and ERD.puml evidence entity (lines 73-84).

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title 'Remove project field' directly and accurately describes the main change: removing the project property from the activity claim schema.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 1

Caution

Some comments are outside the diff and can’t be posted inline due to platform limitations.

⚠️ Outside diff range comments (2)

lexicons/org/hypercerts/claim/evidence.json (1)
10-25: Define the new required hypercert property.

Line 11 requires hypercert, but it is not defined in properties, which makes the lexicon invalid and breaks client validation. Please add the property (or remove it from required if it’s not intended).
🐛 Proposed fix (adjust ref/type as appropriate)
         "properties": {
+          "hypercert": {
+            "type": "ref",
+            "ref": "com.atproto.repo.strongRef",
+            "description": "A strong reference to the hypercert record this evidence is associated with."
+          },
           "subject": {
             "type": "ref",
             "ref": "com.atproto.repo.strongRef",
             "description": "A strong reference to the record this evidence relates to (e.g. an activity, project, claim, or evaluation)."
           },
lexicons/org/hypercerts/claim/activity.json (1)

18-80: Update README.md and ERD.puml to remove the project field from the activity record.

The project field has been removed from the activity lexicon, but README.md (line 188) and ERD.puml still reference it. Remove the project row from the activity properties table in README.md and remove the project? field and activity::project --> project relationship from the activity entity in ERD.puml to maintain documentation-implementation consistency.

🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents

In @.changeset/wild-rivers-flow.md:
- Around line 5-10: Update the changeset to also document the new required
hypercert field on the evidence schema: add a short sentence to the existing
changeset note stating that the evidence claim now requires a hypercert field
(and that this is a public API change) so release notes cover it; reference the
"evidence" schema and the "hypercert" field in the text and keep the note
concise and aligned with the existing reasoning about removal of project from
activity.

coderabbitai · 2026-01-19T21:19:36Z

+Remove `project` field from `activity` claim schema.
+
+Reasoning:
+- **Separation of Concerns & Flexibility**: We decided to remove the `project` field to keep the activity claim as small as possible and free of redundant information.
+- **Lexicon Strategy**: Instead of a direct field, we will use a `collection` lexicon that can encompass project-related data. This allows for collections of collections, enabling more complex structures.
+- **Developer Control**: This approach allows app developers to decide whether to enforce a 1-1 or 1-many relationship between projects and activities, rather than enforcing it at the schema level.


⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Add the evidence schema change to the changeset.

The changeset omits the new required hypercert field in the evidence schema. Please add a brief note so release notes cover all public API changes.

✍️ Suggested update

Remove `project` field from `activity` claim schema. +Require `hypercert` on `evidence` records.

📝 Committable suggestion

‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.

Suggested change

Remove `project` field from `activity` claim schema.

Reasoning:

- **Separation of Concerns & Flexibility**: We decided to remove the `project` field to keep the activity claim as small as possible and free of redundant information.

- **Lexicon Strategy**: Instead of a direct field, we will use a `collection` lexicon that can encompass project-related data. This allows for collections of collections, enabling more complex structures.

- **Developer Control**: This approach allows app developers to decide whether to enforce a 1-1 or 1-many relationship between projects and activities, rather than enforcing it at the schema level.

Remove `project` field from `activity` claim schema.

Require `hypercert` on `evidence` records.

Reasoning:

- **Separation of Concerns & Flexibility**: We decided to remove the `project` field to keep the activity claim as small as possible and free of redundant information.

- **Lexicon Strategy**: Instead of a direct field, we will use a `collection` lexicon that can encompass project-related data. This allows for collections of collections, enabling more complex structures.

- **Developer Control**: This approach allows app developers to decide whether to enforce a 1-1 or 1-many relationship between projects and activities, rather than enforcing it at the schema level.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

In @.changeset/wild-rivers-flow.md around lines 5 - 10, Update the changeset to also document the new required hypercert field on the evidence schema: add a short sentence to the existing changeset note stating that the evidence claim now requires a hypercert field (and that this is a public API change) so release notes cover it; reference the "evidence" schema and the "hypercert" field in the text and keep the note concise and aligned with the existing reasoning about removal of project from activity.

s-adamantine · 2026-01-19T21:20:30Z

duplicate PR

aspiers · 2026-01-19T21:20:55Z

Yep duplicate of #67 as discussed just now

s-adamantine added 2 commits January 20, 2026 09:43

the hypercert should be required in the evidence

0e28021

refactor(activity): remove project field from schema details

8d336b6

coderabbitai Bot reviewed Jan 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

s-adamantine closed this Jan 19, 2026

Navigation Menu

Uh oh!

Remove project field - #68

Remove project field#68
s-adamantine wants to merge 2 commits into
developfrom
remove-project-field

s-adamantine commented Jan 19, 2026 •

edited by coderabbitai Bot

Loading

Uh oh!

changeset-bot Bot commented Jan 19, 2026

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Jan 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Walkthrough

Changes

Estimated code review effort

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

Poem

Pre-merge checks failed

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot left a comment

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot Jan 19, 2026

Uh oh!

s-adamantine commented Jan 19, 2026

Uh oh!

aspiers commented Jan 19, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

s-adamantine commented Jan 19, 2026 • edited by coderabbitai Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary by CodeRabbit

Uh oh!

changeset-bot Bot commented Jan 19, 2026

🦋 Changeset detected

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Jan 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Walkthrough

Changes

Estimated code review effort

Possibly related PRs

Suggested reviewers

Poem

Pre-merge checks failed

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot Jan 19, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

s-adamantine commented Jan 19, 2026

Uh oh!

aspiers commented Jan 19, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

s-adamantine commented Jan 19, 2026 •

edited by coderabbitai Bot

Loading

coderabbitai Bot commented Jan 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading