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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
keywords only exhibit the behaviors they're defined with #1577
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
keywords only exhibit the behaviors they're defined with #1577
Changes from 9 commits
de8ed30
2058d3e
a695c40
1a7a34a
50e9aca
b48cf71
78ca35d
20fe3e1
784ad8b
030f022
6272ae8
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure what this is aiming to prevent.
Behaviors outside the three above? I'm not sure what that would be. That also seems more the concern of the definition of an extension keyword rather than an implementation.
Or behaviors within the three, but that aren't in a specification? If so, that seems just the nature of a specification, that an implementation of it sticks to its specified behaviors.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
See, this thread.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
More a broader comment that comes to mind with this change...
I know we have at times talked about the posibility of adding "shortcut" keywords, such as combining
properties
andrequired
. I forget if this is something we explicitly decided we would or would not do. (I would be happy stating we will not do such, but I wanted to see what those with a better memory remember also!)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We actually do have a
requiredProperties
-ish proposal.I think it's still good advice.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This references Core Spec Keyword Behaviors but then also repeats, or is redundant with, a significant amount of that section.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The validation spec uses the phrase "an instance validates against this keyword if...", or some variant of it, quite a lot. I just wanted to define what that means. The phrasing is different than "this keyword exhibits assertion behavior by...", which feels more clunky to me (and I'd have to change a lot of places).