Improve curie validation #285
Conversation
According the CURIE syntax specification [1] "The prefix is separated from the reference by a colon (:). It is possible to omit both the prefix and the colon [...]." But a test case existed expecting a CURIE omitting both prefix and colon to be invalid. This patch fixes this wrong expectation. [1]: https://www.w3.org/TR/curie/#s_syntax Signed-off-by: Silvano Cirujano Cuesta <[email protected]>
CURIE relative_ref part can perfectly be a number. Fixing wrong expectation rejecting number only relative_refs. Signed-off-by: Silvano Cirujano Cuesta <[email protected]>
CURIE prefixes can start with an underscore ('_'). This patch adds a
test case to validate it.
Signed-off-by: Silvano Cirujano Cuesta <[email protected]>
CURIE validation in metamodelcore was erroneous and rejecting valid CURIEs like those missing a prefix and a colon. This patch fixes it. Signed-off-by: Silvano Cirujano Cuesta <[email protected]>
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #285 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 62.09% 62.08% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 63 63
Lines 8461 8459 -2
Branches 2170 2169 -1
==========================================
- Hits 5254 5252 -2
Misses 2599 2599
Partials 608 608
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
You you still working on this PR @Silvanoc ? |
Sorry, I completely forgot this PR. Ich had a private discussion on Slack with @sierra-moxon, where she was raising her concern about the convenience of the changes implying that something like I'm quoting here her concern and my answer: By @sierra-moxon:
By @Silvanoc:
After that I simply forgot about it. @cmungall what's your opinion about it? Could you formulate it with comments on the tests? Something like "I wouldn't expect this to be accepted" or otherwise. |
Removing wrong expectations on CURIEs and adding new expectations. Also fixing validation according the specification.