json schema refactor.

[asadarafat]

1. additionalProperties: false is used in more place to forbid extra fields and so we can have strict validation.
2. Removed minItems from scalar properties (e.g., for string or number). Because thing could go haywire as keyword minItems should be used for array, while the keyword minItems used in type string and number in previous schema
3. Unified enum values for "mage-pull-policy and restart-policy to avoid duplicates and different case variants.
4. Factored out complex regex pattern for ports and publish into separate definitions (port-pattern and publish-pattern).
5. Switched kinds from many hardcoded properties to a single patternProperties rule for flexibility in topology.kinds.
6. AllOf logic remains intact for kind-conditional type constraints, but ensured they don’t contradict each other.

[hellt]

@asadarafat what is this file for?

[asadarafat]

@hellt, I assume you are referring to schemas/clab.schema.jsonc. It is essentially the same as clab.schema.json, but with added comments. The .jsonc format is supported by VSCode, allowing for better readability and enhanced documentation within the file.

[hellt]

this is too big to be merged in one go
we need to raise it in smaller chunks.

Remove the duplicate files, keep the jsonc and add a make target make schema that will create a json file off of it, so that we could keep the comments and have a regular json out of it

[asadarafat]

Can you elaborate what do you mean by smaller chunk, perhaps with some example of the chunks?Cheers/AsadAm 31.01.2025 um 23:34 schrieb Roman Dodin ***@***.***>: this is too big to be merged in one go we need to raise it in smaller chunks —Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[hellt]

Can you elaborate what do you mean by smaller chunk, perhaps with some example of the chunks?

the changes should be scoped to a smaller amount of existing schema, so it would be easier to test the changes.
Take one improvement out of many and create it as a PR instead of having all of them tucked together as an example

[asadarafat]

Got it.Cheers/AsadAm 01.02.2025 um 00:26 schrieb Roman Dodin ***@***.***>: Can you elaborate what do you mean by smaller chunk, perhaps with some example of the chunks? the changes should be scoped to a smaller amount of existing schema, so it would be easier to test the changes. Take one improvement out of many and create it as a PR instead of having all of them tucked together as an example —Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>