Redocly/redoc

Type: Array and nullable: true does not render nullable

Open

#1155 opened on Jan 9, 2020

View on GitHub
 (1 comment) (1 reaction) (0 assignees)TypeScript (21,877 stars) (2,272 forks)batch import
Type: Bughelp wanted

Description

I have a response which either returns an array or null. I specify the return json schema with:

{
  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
    "type": "array",
    "uniqueItems": true,
    "items": {
      ....
    }
  "nullable": true
}

But redoc does not render this like for other types e.g. integers.

I currently use the following workaround:

{
  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
  "oneOf": [
    {
      "type": "array",
      "uniqueItems": true,
      "items": {
        "$ref": "../shared/id.json#"
      }
    },
    {
      "type": "any"
      "nullable":true
    }
  ]
}

grafik

Contributor guide

Tech stack
typescriptreact
Domain
documentationfrontendapi
Issue type
bug
DifficultyEstimated implementation difficulty for a new contributor, from 1 for very small changes to 5 for expert-level work.
2
Estimated timeA rough time range for an experienced contributor to investigate, implement, test, and prepare a pull request.
1-3 hours
Activity statusHow available the issue appears right now: fresh, active, stale, blocked, or waiting on maintainer input.
stale
ClarityHow clearly the issue explains the expected change, acceptance criteria, and next step.
clear
Prerequisites
JSON Schema knowledgeReact basics
Newbie friendlinessA 1-100 score estimating how approachable this issue is for first-time contributors.
85
Research direction
Investigate how Redoc renders nullable for non array types (e.g., integers) by examining the source code, likely in the Schema component. The issue shows that nullable: true is not applied when type is array. Look for where the nullable annotation is added to the rendered output and ensure it handles array type. The workaround using oneOf suggests that the rendering logic may not check nullable for arrays. Refer to issue #1155 and any related code comments.