Break out optional tests into requirement-level directories #708
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This is another attempt at #590: it would be nice to have the optional tests indicate to what degree they are optional.
I've also added
readmes to each of the directories so that the intent of the folder is known (both for implementors and for people amending the tests).I've only done draft/next for now. I'm not sure if we want to apply this to the previous versions.
Refs: #495 #25
Open Questions
bignum&float-overflowAre these tests in optional because the JSON spec makes a concession for environments that can't handle arbitrary numbers? While JSON Schema doesn't define any restrictions, it also doesn't make any such concessions.
I've put them in undefined/ for now.
References:
format-assertionThe spec isn't explicit on the requirement level for vocabularies as a feature. I'd (@gregsdennis) assume it's a MUST, but that's just an interpretation.
There are requirement levels on
$vocabularyand its usage, but nothing requiring that vocabularies be a supported feature in general.As such, I'm not sure where this should go.
First, all of these tests assume that the
format-assertionvocabulary is understood, which is optional. ("An implementation that supports the Format-Assertion vocabulary..." implies that implementations have the option to not support it.)Secondly, assuming the above, these test become mandatory because "full validation support" is a MUST requirement.
I think this is a MAY overall, but could use confirmation.
Also, we don't have any tests around not understanding the
format-assertionvocabulary. I think this is partially due to the fact that we can't handle error scenarios.References: