Http-Date Trait Value Validation Bug Fix#1946
Closed
lewisjkl wants to merge 1 commit intosmithy-lang:mainfrom
Closed
Http-Date Trait Value Validation Bug Fix#1946lewisjkl wants to merge 1 commit intosmithy-lang:mainfrom
lewisjkl wants to merge 1 commit intosmithy-lang:mainfrom
Conversation
mtdowling
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 24, 2023
The NodeValidationVisitor vists shapes, members, and then the targets of members. When visiting the target of a member, the context of the referring member was lost, which meant a member with a timestampFormat trait like http-date isn't something the target shape has access to, which will cause validation to fail. We now pass in the referring member as part of the validation context. Closes #1946
Member
|
Thanks for the PR and proposed fix! I decided to fix this differently that doesn't need the creation of synthetic shapes: #1948 |
mtdowling
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 24, 2023
The NodeValidationVisitor vists shapes, members, and then the targets of members. When visiting the target of a member, the context of the referring member was lost, which meant a member with a timestampFormat trait like http-date isn't something the target shape has access to, which will cause validation to fail. We now pass in the referring member as part of the validation context. Closes #1946
mtdowling
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 24, 2023
The NodeValidationVisitor vists shapes, members, and then the targets of members. When visiting the target of a member, the context of the referring member was lost, which meant a member with a timestampFormat trait like http-date isn't something the target shape has access to, which will cause validation to fail. We now pass in the referring member as part of the validation context. Closes #1946
Contributor
Author
Great, thank you for such a quick turn around! |
alextwoods
pushed a commit
to alextwoods/smithy
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 15, 2023
The NodeValidationVisitor vists shapes, members, and then the targets of members. When visiting the target of a member, the context of the referring member was lost, which meant a member with a timestampFormat trait like http-date isn't something the target shape has access to, which will cause validation to fail. We now pass in the referring member as part of the validation context. Closes smithy-lang#1946
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Found an issue where if the http-date timestamp format was used in a trait, then the validation would always fail (because it was checked twice, each time with a different format).
e.g. the following would fail:
A workaround at the moment is to do:
This PR contains a test that reproduces the issue and one way of fixing it (no problem if you all want to do it differently or suggest a different way to me).
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
YES