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
In implementation.milestones the uniqueItems property is set to true, however the milestones arrays in planning, tender and contract do not have this property set.
This means that data with duplicate milestones (or duplicate milestone ids) in these sections doesn't result in a validation error.
The definition of milestone.id states:
A local identifier for this milestone, unique within this block
So uniqueItems should be set to true in all milestones arrays.
Adding this to the 2.0 milestone as it could make existing data invalid.
I'll open an issue on the CoVE tracker to add an additional check for duplicate milestones ids until we can add this to the schema.
jpmckinney
added
Schema: Validation
Relating to constraints in the JSON Schema
and removed
Schema
Relating to other changes in the JSON Schema (renamed fields, schema properties, etc.)
labels
Jul 22, 2020
This is in the 1.2.0 Strict milestone, where the idea is to add a "strict" version of the schema alongside the main version, so that publishers can opt-in to stricter rules (otherwise, we have to create a 2.0 release to apply the strict rules).
However, we haven't started on the documentation, etc. needed for a strict version. So this depends on #1046
In
implementation.milestones
theuniqueItems
property is set totrue
, however themilestones
arrays inplanning
,tender
andcontract
do not have this property set.This means that data with duplicate milestones (or duplicate milestone ids) in these sections doesn't result in a validation error.
The definition of
milestone.id
states:So
uniqueItems
should be set totrue
in allmilestones
arrays.Adding this to the 2.0 milestone as it could make existing data invalid.
I'll open an issue on the CoVE tracker to add an additional check for duplicate milestones ids until we can add this to the schema.
cc @pindec
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: