Re: [Json] Another problematic JSON Schema use-case

So, to close the loop, here's how I worked around the problem. I
auto-processed my large schema with a Ruby script to generate a small
schema for each of the "Type":"Animal/Vegetable/Mineral" variations, then
if the large schema reports any errors, I run through the objects
validating each with the appropriate micro-schema.  This way, I almost
always get a human-comprehensible error message.

Not optimal, but better than writing a fully procedural validator by hand.
On May 26, 2016 12:00 AM, "Andrew Newton" <andy@hxr.us> wrote:

> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> > Andrew Newton wrote:
> >> It's not too much to ask, but the problem may be with the JSON parser.
> >> Many parsers ingest JSON and give back native data structures, which
> >> is what makes JSON simple for most people. But a validator needs
> >> context that a typical JSON parser does not provide.
> >
> > Can you give an example for that?
> >
>
> Given the following:
>
> [
>   { "foo" : "bar" }
> ]
>
> Here is what happens if I use the built-in Ruby parser:
>
> irb(main):017:0> s
> => "\n[\n  { \"foo\":\"bar\"}\n]\n"
> irb(main):018:0> JSON.parse s
> => [{"foo"=>"bar"}]
>
> If a validator wants to ensure that "foo" is "baz" and not "bar", its
> lost the information to tell the user to look at line 2.
>
> By contrast, if a validator were to use Jackson as a stream parser, it
> would have access to JsonLocation:
>
> http://fasterxml.github.io/jackson-core/javadoc/2.1.0/com/fasterxml/jackson/core/JsonLocation.html
>
> > (I'm familiar with a problem like this from CBOR, where CDDL maybe
> > sometimes wants to make serialization choices*), which are no longer
> > visible at the data model level; I just haven't seen the need with JSON.)
>
> I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing.
>
> -andy
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>