Skip to content
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

tokenUrl in 3.1 schema does not support relative urls as specified #4327

Open
markrzen opened this issue Feb 3, 2025 · 6 comments · Fixed by #4328
Open

tokenUrl in 3.1 schema does not support relative urls as specified #4327

markrzen opened this issue Feb 3, 2025 · 6 comments · Fixed by #4328
Labels

Comments

@markrzen
Copy link

markrzen commented Feb 3, 2025

I am not super familiar with the OpenAPI 3.1 specification, so please excuse me if I misunderstood anything.

It appears that tokenUrl, a fixed field, should have been modeled in the 3.1 JSONSchema as a uri-reference to support relative urls.

REF: https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/main/schemas/v3.1/schema.yaml#L899-L901

Note that the 3.0 schema has the format as uri-reference, as I would expect.

Happy to put in a pull request if this makes sense to someone with more experience in the repository.

REL: seriousme/openapi-schema-validator#178

@handrews
Copy link
Member

handrews commented Feb 3, 2025

Yeah AFAICT that falls under the rule that "URI" and "URL" really mean URI-reference and URL-reference (which is still format: uri-reference) in the spec (a rule I find confusing, personally).

@karenetheridge any thoughts here on this schema issue?

@handrews handrews added the Schema label Feb 3, 2025
@karenetheridge
Copy link
Member

I agree -- given https://spec.openapis.org/oas/v3.1.1#relative-references-in-api-urls, most things in the schema that are "format": "uri" should be uri-reference instead. We should probably revise the text in the spec as well to be more clear about that (or at least point back to section 4.7).

@markrzen
Copy link
Author

markrzen commented Feb 4, 2025

In what is likely optimism, I filed a PR attempting to fix the issue I filed here. Hopefully I read between the lines well enough on both your conversation and the repo instructions.

@markrzen
Copy link
Author

markrzen commented Feb 5, 2025

@handrews @karenetheridge Is there anything else I can do to help resolve this?

@handrews
Copy link
Member

handrews commented Feb 5, 2025

@markrzen probably not, we'll look at it in tomorrow's weekly call if no one gets to it before that.

@ralfhandl ralfhandl linked a pull request Feb 6, 2025 that will close this issue
3 tasks
@baywet
Copy link
Contributor

baywet commented Feb 13, 2025

from the meeting:

  • let's start by documenting the process to release independent schema changes (no new spec version) Document & automate release process #4278 (in contributing)
  • then we'll be in a position to release the updated schema
  • and update the automation

Some context that might help with the documentation step:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants