Hacktoberfest 2026: as issues que os mantenedores marcaram para outubro, abertas e boas para iniciantes. Ver issues do Hacktoberfest

Validation of required fields inconsistent

Aberta
#373 1 comentário 0 reações 0 responsáveis Ver no GitHub

Ninguém assumiu esta issue ainda.

Avaliação

Dificuldade
5/5
Tempo estimado
Mais de uma semana
Facilidade para iniciantes
25/100
Tipo de issue
Bug
Clareza
Precisa de esclarecimento
Status de atividade
Estagnada
Stack de tecnologia
python
Domínio
api, testing-qa

Direção de pesquisa

The issue names no files or tests. First read the linked discussions and referenced issues #154, #312, #97, and #266 to determine the intended required-field validation policy, then locate the corresponding validator and tests. Done means the project has a decided, consistent behavior for standard, allOf, and referenced schemas, with coverage for that behavior.

Escrita pelo modelo de indexação a partir do texto da issue.

Descrição

kind/bug/confirmed

The validation of the required keyword does not make sense as it is implemented right now, IMHO.

  1. It really does not make any sense to list properties in required that do not exist.
  2. If you want to use it with allOf and therefore have properties in required that do not exist, there are already precautions (#154).
  3. Currently, there is no validation error in the standard case but as soon as I have allOf in my schema, there is a validation error. That is inconsistent. The PR that breaks it: #312
  4. In $referenced schemas, the validation does not take effect either.

One of the main reasons why this should urgently be validated (as was in version 0.7.0) is that validators (that use the specification to validate requests/responses) will fail if there is e.g. a typo in one of the entries in required. And now there is no way to detect that.

In general, the OpenAPI/JsonSchema specification is quite relaxed. If only the bare minimum should be validated, this is probably not the only validation that can basically be removed completely.

My take on this:

  1. Best case: Throw validation errors for things that are obvious errors (like specifying a field as required that does not even exist).
  2. Second best option: make it configurable ("strict mode") or filterable (error IDs to exclude, filter levels, ...).
  3. Absolutely necessary minium: make it consistent.

I'd be willing to provide a PR. But since this has been going back and forth I'd like a decision first, where this is going.

Linguagem predominante
Python
Estrelas
409
Forks
73
Nenhum PR com merge em 30d

Guia de contribuição

Abrir o guia de contribuição

Primeiros passos

  1. Leia a issue inteira e depois o guia de contribuição do projeto.
  2. Comente na issue dizendo que vai assumir — evita que duas pessoas façam o mesmo trabalho.
  3. Faça um fork do repositório e trabalhe em uma branch.
  4. Abra um pull request que referencie o número da issue.

Mais de python-openapi/openapi-spec-validator

Todas as issues de python-openapi/openapi-spec-validator

Issues semelhantes

Mais issues de Python

Receba novas issues na sua caixa de entrada

Um resumo curto de issues do GitHub para quem está começando.