[FOLIO-3560] Erroneous api-lint validation for mod-patron with new AMF dependency Created: 22/Aug/22 Updated: 26/Oct/22 Resolved: 26/Oct/22 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | FOLIO |
| Components: | None |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | None |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | TBD |
| Reporter: | David Crossley | Assignee: | David Crossley |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||
| Sprint: | DevOps Sprint 146, DevOps Sprint 149, DevOps Sprint 150, DevOps Sprint 151 | ||||||||
| Development Team: | FOLIO DevOps | ||||||||
| RCA Group: | TBD | ||||||||
| Description |
|
Each time that we upgrade the api-lint dependency "amf-client-js" we do local testing of all back-end modules. With the recent
So it is likely an upstream issue. Raised a ticket at AMF: https://github.com/aml-org/amf/issues/1551 |
| Comments |
| Comment by David Crossley [ 22/Aug/22 ] |
---- validationResult: ModelId: file://./ramls/patron.raml Profile: RAML 1.0 Conforms: false Number of results: 1 Level: Violation - Constraint: http://a.ml/vocabularies/amf/validation#example-validation-error Message: charges[0].chargeAmount should NOT have additional properties charges[0].chargeAmount should have required property 'charges' charges[0].chargeAmount should have required property 'holds' charges[0].chargeAmount should have required property 'loans' charges[0].chargeAmount should have required property 'totalCharges' charges[0].chargeAmount should have required property 'totalChargesCount' charges[0].chargeAmount should have required property 'totalHolds' charges[0].chargeAmount should have required property 'totalLoans' charges[0].item should NOT have additional properties charges[0].item should have required property 'charges' charges[0].item should have required property 'holds' charges[0].item should have required property 'loans' charges[0].item should have required property 'totalCharges' charges[0].item should have required property 'totalChargesCount' charges[0].item should have required property 'totalHolds' charges[0].item should have required property 'totalLoans' holds[0].item should NOT have additional properties holds[0].item should have required property 'charges' holds[0].item should have required property 'holds' holds[0].item should have required property 'loans' holds[0].item should have required property 'totalCharges' holds[0].item should have required property 'totalChargesCount' holds[0].item should have required property 'totalHolds' holds[0].item should have required property 'totalLoans' loans[0].item should NOT have additional properties loans[0].item should have required property 'charges' loans[0].item should have required property 'holds' loans[0].item should have required property 'loans' loans[0].item should have required property 'totalCharges' loans[0].item should have required property 'totalChargesCount' loans[0].item should have required property 'totalHolds' loans[0].item should have required property 'totalLoans' Severity: Violation Target: file://./ramls/patron.raml#/web-api/endpoint/%2Fpatron%2Faccount%2F%7Bid%7D/supportedOperation/get/returns/resp/200/payload/application%2Fjson/shape/schema/examples/example/default-example Property: file://./ramls/patron.raml#/web-api/endpoint/%2Fpatron%2Faccount%2F%7Bid%7D/supportedOperation/get/returns/resp/200/payload/application%2Fjson/shape/schema/examples/example/default-example Range: [(1,0)-(56,1)] Location: file://./ramls/examples/account.json Doing independent assessment with z-schema shows no problem. z-schema --pedanticCheck account.json examples/account.json |
| Comment by David Crossley [ 30/Aug/22 ] |
|
The issue was acknowledged upstream. Our
|
| Comment by David Crossley [ 01/Sep/22 ] |
|
Blocked awaiting the upstream ticket AMF 1551. |
| Comment by David Crossley [ 22/Sep/22 ] |
|
The upstream AMF 1551 ticket has a fix. Will be in the next release, due around October 19. |
| Comment by David Crossley [ 26/Oct/22 ] |
|
Via
All okay now. |