I need to create a JSON schema for data that comes as an array directly within the root object, unnamed. An MWE for this kind of JSON would be:
{
[
{
"veggieName": "potato",
"veggieLike": true
},
{
"veggieName": "broccoli",
"veggieLike": false
}
]
}
I have seen examples for schemas which validate such an array which is not nested in an object. I have also seen examples which work when the array is named, for example
{
vegetables : [
{
"veggieName": "potato",
"veggieLike": true
},
{
"veggieName": "broccoli",
"veggieLike": false
}
]
}
This second example can be validated by the schema
{
"$id": "https://example.com/arrays.schema.json",
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
"description": "A representation of a person, company, organization, or place",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"vegetables": {
"type": "array",
"items": { "$ref": "#/definitions/veggie" }
}
},
"definitions": {
"veggie": {
"type": "object",
"required": [ "veggieName", "veggieLike" ],
"properties": {
"veggieName": {
"type": "string",
"description": "The name of the vegetable."
},
"veggieLike": {
"type": "boolean",
"description": "Do I like this vegetable?"
}
}
}
}
}
But the problem is, as soon as the name "vegetables" is removed, I was not able to find a way to define a valid schema. How do I properly represent my data structure in a schema?
(MWEs derived from http://json-schema.org/learn/miscellaneous-examples.html).
The schema you are looking for is the following:
{
"$id":"https://example.com/arrays.schema.json",
"$schema":"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
"description":"A representation of a person, company, organization, or place",
"type":"array",
"items":{
"type":"object",
"required":[
"veggieName",
"veggieLike"
],
"properties":{
"veggieName":{
"type":"string",
"description":"The name of the vegetable."
},
"veggieLike":{
"type":"boolean",
"description":"Do I like this vegetable?"
}
}
}
}
You also need to modify your base array instance, your original one (the "unnamed" array) was not valid JSON:
[
{
"veggieName":"potato",
"veggieLike":true
},
{
"veggieName":"broccoli",
"veggieLike":false
}
]
Unlike XML, where you are allowed a single root node per document only, in JSON you can have either a type or an array as a root type.
Related
I'm creating a json schema to define necessary data with data types. There is some data need to be set into required filed. But didn't find how to do it in its document.
For this json schema:
{
"type": "object",
"required": [
"version",
"categories"
],
"properties": {
"version": {
"type": "string",
"minLength": 1,
"maxLength": 1
},
"categories": {
"type": "array",
"items": [
{
"title": {
"type": "string",
"minLength": 1
},
"body": {
"type": "string",
"minLength": 1
}
}
]
}
}
}
json like
{
"version":"1",
"categories":[
{
"title":"First",
"body":"Good"
},
{
"title":"Second",
"body":"Bad"
}
]
}
I want to set title to be required, too. It's in a sub array. How to set it in json schema?
There are a few things wrong with your schema. I'm going to assume you're using JSON Schema draft 2019-09.
First, you want items to be an object, not an array, as you want it to apply to every item in the array.
If "items" is a schema, validation succeeds if all elements in the
array successfully validate against that schema.
If "items" is an array of schemas, validation succeeds if each
element of the instance validates against the schema at the same
position, if any.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-handrews-json-schema-02#section-9.3.1.1
Second, if the value of items should be a schema, you need to treat it like a schema in its own right.
If we take the item from your items array as a schema, it doesn't actually do anything, and you need to nest it in a properties keyword...
{
"properties": {
"title": {
"type": "string",
"minLength": 1
},
"body": {
"type": "string",
"minLength": 1
}
}
}
Finally, now your items keyword value is a schema (subschema), you can add any keywords you can normally use, such as required, the same as you have done previously.
{
"required": [
"title"
],
"properties": {
...
}
}
Background
I am making a form using angular-schema-form
Setup
I am trying to make an array of items that a user can make using a form. So, the user can add as many items into the array as they want.
For now the items in the array contain a command type.
Command Type should be a dropdown containing SSH, REST, and whatever the user enters in as the personalized command type.
Code so far
SCHEMA
{
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"personalizedCommandType": {
"title": "Personalized Command Type",
"type": "string"
},
"commands": {
"type": "array",
"title": "Actions",
"items": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"commandType": {
"title": "Command Type",
"type": "string",
"enum": [
"REST",
"SSH"
]
}
}
}
}
}
}
FORM
[
{
"type": "help",
"helpvalue": "<h5>Command</h5>"
},
{
"key":"personalizedCommandType"
},
{
"title":"Command",
"key": "commands",
"items": [
"commands[].commandType"
]
}
]
One can test this code here: http://schemaform.io/examples/bootstrap-example.html . Just copy and paste in my code.
Question
As one can see, the code I have now has a field with Personalized Command Type and an array of dropdowns with the 2 options SSH and REST. But I want to drop to also contain the value of the Personalized Command Type once the user has entered it.
NOTE
copyValueTo does not seem to have the functionality that I want given that it can only change values in the model, but I want it to change the enum array in the schema.
Use the onChange option:
[
{
"type": "help",
"helpvalue": "<h5>Command</h5>"
},
{
"key":"personalizedCommandType"
onChange: "updateSchema(modelValue,form)"
},
{
"title":"Command",
"key": "commands",
"items": [
"commands[].commandType"
]
}
]
Update the Schema:
var defaultEnum = ["REST","SSH"];
$scope.updateSchema = function(modelValue,form) {
var currentEnum = $scope.schema.commands.items.properties.commandType.enum;
angular.copy(defaultEnum, currentEnum);
if (modelValue) {
currentEnum.push(modelValue);
};
$scope.$broadcast('schemaFormRedraw');
};
I'm using document references to import parent fields into a child document. While searches against the parent fields work, the parent fields themselves do not seem to be included in the search results, only child fields.
To use the example in the documentation, salesperson_name does not appear in the fields entry for id:test:ad::1 when using query=John, or indeed when retrieving id:test:ad::1 via GET directly.
Here's a simplified configuration for my document model:
search definitions
person.sd - the parent
search person {
document person {
field name type string {
indexing: summary | attribute
}
}
fieldset default {
fields: name
}
}
event.sd - the child
search event {
document event {
field code type string {
indexing: summary | attribute
}
field speaker type reference<person> {
indexing: summary | attribute
}
}
import field speaker.name as name {}
fieldset default {
fields: code
}
}
documents
p1 - person
{
"fields": {
"name": "p1"
}
}
e1 - event
{
"fields": {
"code": "e1",
"speaker": "id:n1:person::1"
}
}
query result
curl -s "http://localhost:8080/search/?yql=select%20*%20from%20sources%20*where%20name%20contains%20%22p1%22%3B" | python -m json.tool
This returns both e1 and p1, as you would expect, given that name is present in both. But the fields of e1 do not include the name.
{
"root": {
"children": [
{
"fields": {
"documentid": "id:n1:person::1",
"name": "p1",
"sddocname": "person"
},
"id": "id:n1:person::1",
"relevance": 0.0017429193899782135,
"source": "music"
},
{
"fields": {
"code": "e1",
"documentid": "id:n1:event::1",
"sddocname": "event",
"speaker": "id:n1:person::1"
},
"id": "id:n1:event::1",
"relevance": 0.0017429193899782135,
"source": "music"
}
],
...
"fields": {
"totalCount": 2
},
}
}
Currently you'll need to add the imported 'name' into the default summary by
import field speaker.name as name {}
document-summary default {
summary name type string{}
}
More about explicit document summaries in http://docs.vespa.ai/documentation/document-summaries.html
The result of your query will then return
"children": [
{
"fields": {
"documentid": "id:n1:person::1",
"name": "p1",
"sddocname": "person"
},
"id": "id:n1:person::1",
"relevance": 0.0017429193899782135,
"source": "stuff"
},
{
"fields": {
"code": "e1",
"documentid": "id:n1:event::1",
"name": "p1",
"sddocname": "event",
"speaker": "id:n1:person::1"
},
"id": "id:n1:event::1",
"relevance": 0.0017429193899782135,
"source": "stuff"
}
],
We'll improve the documentation on this. Thanks for the very detailed write-up.
Add "summary" to the indexing statement of the imported field in the parent document type.
E.g in the documentation example change the "name" field in the "salesperson" document type to say "indexing: attribute | summary".
Currently I am trying to create a swagger file for my software.
Now I would like to create a definition for a timeRange.
My problem is that this array looks like this:
timeRange: {
"2016-01-15T09:00:00.000Z", // this is the start date
"2017-01-15T09:00:00.000Z" // this is the end date
}
How can I create an example value that works out of the box?
It is an "array of strings" with a minimum of two.
"timeRange": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string",
"example": "2017-01-15T09:00:00.000Z,2017-01-15T09:00:00.000Z"
}
}
This generates an example like this:
"timeRange": [
"2017-01-15T09:00:00.000Z,2017-01-15T09:00:00.000Z"
]
This example does not work, because it is an array and not an object.
All together:
How can I realize an example value that exists out of two different strings (without a name).
Hope you can help me!
Cheers!
timeRange: {
"2016-01-15T09:00:00.000Z", // this is the start date
"2017-01-15T09:00:00.000Z" // this is the end date
}
is not valid JSON – "timeRange" needs to be enclosed in quotes, and the object/array syntax should be different.
If using the object syntax {}, the values need to be named properties:
"timeRange": {
"start_date": "2016-01-15T09:00:00.000Z",
"end_date": "2017-01-15T09:00:00.000Z"
}
Otherwise timeRange needs to be an [] array:
"timeRange": [
"2016-01-15T09:00:00.000Z",
"2017-01-15T09:00:00.000Z"
]
In the first example ({} object), your Swagger would look as follows, with a separate example for each named property:
"timeRange": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"start_date": {
"type": "string",
"format": "date-time",
"example": "2016-01-15T09:00:00.000Z"
},
"end_date": {
"type": "string",
"format": "date-time",
"example": "2017-01-15T09:00:00.000Z"
}
},
"required": ["start_date", "end_date"]
}
In case of an [] array, you can specify an array-level example that is a multi-item array:
"timeRange": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string",
"format": "date-time"
},
"example": [
"2016-01-15T09:00:00.000Z",
"2017-01-15T09:00:00.000Z"
]
}
I'm writing a simple JSON schema and using minItems to validate the number of items in a given array. My schema is as follows:
{
"title": "My Schema",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"root": {
"type": "array",
"properties": {
"id": {
"type": "string"
},
"myarray": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string"
},
"minItems": 4,
"uniqueItems": true
},
"boolean": {
"type": "boolean"
}
},
"required": ["id","myarray","boolean"]
}
},
"required": [
"root"
],
"additionalProperties": false
}
Now I would expect the following JSON to fail validation given the element myarray has nothing in it. But when using this online validator, it passes. Have I done something wrong or is the schema validator I'm using faulty?
{
"root":[
{
"id":"1234567890",
"myarray":[],
"boolean":true
}
]
}
I am not sure why or what it is called, but the correct schema definition for your requirement should be as shown further down.
From what I understand from the JSON Schema definitions, you should declare the properties of an array inside the items declaration. In your schema you where defining properties outside of the array item declaration.
In your schema you have the two different types of array declaration:
Once with just a single object (a string for the "myarray" object)
Once with a complex object (the object name "myComplexType" in the code below)
Have a look at the definitions of both, how they are structured and how they would be interpreted.
The corrected schema:
{
"title": "My Schema",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"root": {
"type": "array",
"items": { <-- Difference here - "items" instead of "properties"
"type": "object", <-- here - define the array items as a complex object
"title": "myComplexType", <-- here - named for easier referencing
"properties": { <-- and here - now we can define the actual properties of the object
"id": {
"type": "string"
},
"myarray": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "string"
},
"minItems": 4,
"uniqueItems": true
},
"boolean": {
"type": "boolean"
}
}
},
"required": [
"id",
"myarray",
"boolean"
]
}
},
"required": [
"root"
],
"additionalProperties": false
}
Remove the comments I added with <-- when copying over to your code, added for pointing where there changes are.
As a note, I do however don't understand why the validator didn't give an error for the 'malformed' schema, but might just be that it saw the definition as you had it as additional properties, not entirely sure.
The only thing wrong with your schema is that the root property should have type object instead of array. Because the properties keyword is not defined for arrays, it is ignored. Therefore, the part of the schema you were trying to test was completely ignored even though it was correct.
Here is the relevant passage from the specification
Some validation keywords only apply to one or more primitive types. When the primitive type of the instance cannot be validated by a given keyword, validation for this keyword and instance SHOULD succeed.
http://json-schema.org/latest/json-schema-validation.html#rfc.section.4.1