On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 01:19:53PM +0100, Daniel Kral wrote: > On Thu Mar 12, 2026 at 10:47 AM CET, Max R. Carrara wrote: > > Just had a look at your patch—nice that you spotted this! > > > > I think this fix here should be fine, but I think it would be nice if > > you added a test: Replicate the broken behavior first, and then fix it > > together with this patch here. So, basically a little bit of TDD. > > > > I'm not a big fan of TDD myself, but I think in this specific case it > > would be beneficial for us to have a test like that—it's also > > documentation at the same time. > > > > Perhaps a nice spot for that would be in the SectionConfig tests > > directory [1] as a separate script or something—see the other scripts > > for how the tests in there work. (ofc you can holler at me too!) > > Thanks for the quick feedback! > > Yeah, but for something integral as the section config adding some test > cases documenting the changes would be great, I'll do that for the v2! > > > > > Regarding JSONSchema: I think the definedness check itself is fine—an > > empty array is still "something" rather than nothing, so ... > > > > We could instead implement some of the other validation keywords [2] for > > arrays, like e.g. `minItems`. I think an array that's `required` and > > also has `minItems` set to `1` would allow you to express what you > > initially wanted where you fixed #7399 [0], right? > > > > I just hope that this is possible in your current JSONSchema—Wolfgang > > and I have spoken about some things related to this a (longer) while > > ago; I believe it was about empty strings / zeroes as well. *That* might > > be a bit more complicated to solve, though and might even require a > > JSONSchema v2 of some sorts, but I don't have all the details in my head > > at the moment. > > Thanks for the insights, I haven't looked too closely at the json schema > draft yet! > > You're right, even though it seems that the draft doesn't specify any > behavior regarding our `optional` property, my proposed change in our
Our optional property is just an "inlined" version of *not* putting something in the enclosing object's `required` array. (IIRC we discussed the possibility of adding that and slowly moving over to using that as it would also make the perl<->rust conversion/interop easier in the long run. > json schema code would break assumptions around our code base and with > all the `min*` properties in mind it indeed would be inconsistent if > those `min*` properties default to `0`. So let's discard that idea. > > > > > [1]: > > https://git.proxmox.com/?p=pve-common.git;a=tree;f=test/SectionConfig;h=0967fb1eebf84b4ecad696901572fa7550d49941;hb=refs/heads/master > > [2]: > > https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/json-schema-validation#name-validation-keywords-for-arr
