bulk-cdk-core-base: replace schema validation library #44593
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎ 1 Skipped Deployment
|
evantahler
approved these changes
Aug 23, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What
The schema validation library we were using to validate the CLI inputs was too strict. For instance, it would complain that
namespacewould benullin an AirbyteStream, despite that being not arequiredfield.It turns out that the reason for this is that the old schema validation library was for json-schema v7 whereas the airbyte protocol is defined for openapi. While these schema definition schemes are very similar they're not quite the same! Evidently openapi is a bit more liberal. In any case, openapi is what we care about anyway.
How
Changed libraries, added regression test case, added more tests.
Review guide
It's quite straightforward.
User Impact
None whatsoever.
Can this PR be safely reverted and rolled back?