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

Schema: Adjust hasItem: loose constant value for type property #1340 #2027

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 6, 2024

Conversation

maipet
Copy link
Contributor

@maipet maipet commented Jun 6, 2024

Schema only accepted Item as type in hasItem but we also have additional type classes:
PhysicalObject, DigitalDocument, NurTitel, PhysikalischerTitel

Since #1699 is not solved yet @maipet suggested to loosen up the type specification. (Written by @TobiasNx )

@maipet maipet requested a review from TobiasNx June 6, 2024 07:51
@TobiasNx TobiasNx changed the title Adjust constant value for type property #1340 Schema: Adjust hasItem: loose constant value for type property #1340 Aug 5, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@TobiasNx TobiasNx left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

+0/1 But we should adjust it again, if we find a solution for the properties: #1699

@TobiasNx TobiasNx requested a review from acka47 August 5, 2024 08:19
Copy link
Contributor

@acka47 acka47 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

+1 Looks good, assuming we really set type Item for every object in the hasItem array and add other optional types in addition.

@TobiasNx TobiasNx assigned maipet and unassigned acka47 Aug 6, 2024
@maipet maipet merged commit a859f36 into master Aug 6, 2024
1 check passed
@maipet maipet deleted the 1340-AdjustHasItemJsonSchema branch August 6, 2024 08:59
@maipet maipet removed their assignment Aug 8, 2024
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.

3 participants