You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The current specification of ID's in the various formats is a bit ambigious. The description of ID specifies UUID while the rules of ID specifiy a less restrictive form (2-64 characters, only alphanumeric characters etc.). JSON schema does have a UUID type (https://json-schema.org/understanding-json-schema/reference/string#resource-identifiers). If really a UUID is required we should make the rules regarding possible ID's stricter by changing the pattern or using the 'uuid' format. Or we should clarify the description that a UUID-like identifier is required.
The current specification of ID's in the various formats is a bit ambigious. The description of ID specifies
UUID
while the rules of ID specifiy a less restrictive form (2-64 characters, only alphanumeric characters etc.). JSON schema does have a UUID type (https://json-schema.org/understanding-json-schema/reference/string#resource-identifiers). If really a UUID is required we should make the rules regarding possible ID's stricter by changing the pattern or using the 'uuid' format. Or we should clarify the description that a UUID-like identifier is required.Example:
https://github.com/flexiblepower/s2-ws-json/blob/main/s2-json-schema/schemas/ID.schema.json#L7C5-L7C55 References
An identifier expressed as a UUID
while"pattern": "[a-zA-Z0-9\\-_:]{2,64}"
which is less restrictive than a UUID@wilcowijbrandi Perhaps you can clarify what the intent was?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: