Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: multiple schema distinction in validation #410

Merged

Conversation

p-spacek
Copy link
Contributor

What does this PR do?

When there are more possible warning messages from different schemas or objects connected to specific problem, validator takes only the first one and it's hard to recognize the core of the problem.

before:MissingProp-Before
after: MissingProp-After

before:IncorrectType-Before
after: IncorrectType-After
after:Const-After

jump to multiple schemas:
before:JumpToSchema-Before
after: JumpToSchema-After

What issues does this PR fix or reference?

p-spacek#10

Is it tested? How?

Unit tests

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Feb 23, 2021

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.3%) to 76.457% when pulling c445906 on p-spacek:feat/multiple-schema-distinction into f0c5594 on redhat-developer:master.

 - add new end line
 - modify warning message consts
Copy link
Collaborator

@evidolob evidolob left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Working good!

@evidolob evidolob added this to the 0.16.0 milestone Feb 23, 2021
Copy link
Contributor

@JPinkney JPinkney left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

@evidolob evidolob merged commit ce66564 into redhat-developer:master Feb 23, 2021
@p-spacek
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you for really quick review and merge!!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants