-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
feat(cli): guard object-valued map shapes in schema evolution #155
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
Open
phacops
wants to merge
1
commit into
main
Choose a base branch
from
claude/object-additional-properties-e6l5yu
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+199
−12
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
Bug: The check for
additionalPropertieschanges in object types is stricter than for array items, incorrectly flagging the addition ofadditionalPropertiesas a breaking change.Severity: MEDIUM
Suggested Fix
Align the object-type schema evolution check with the array-item check. Add an
is_some()guard to the condition forold_additionalto ensure that addingadditionalPropertiesto a previously fixed object is not considered a breaking change. The logic should be similar toold_additional.is_some() && old_additional != new_additional.Prompt for AI Agent
Did we get this right? 👍 / 👎 to inform future reviews.
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.
Not a real issue — the premise doesn't hold here.
property_schemain the evolution check is the post-injection schema (OptionMetadata::property_schemais cloned afterinject_object_constraintsruns inSchemaRegistry::parse_schema). For anytype: "object"option, injection guaranteesadditionalPropertiesis present: a fixed struct getsadditionalProperties: falseinjected, and a map keeps its declared value schema. I verified this directly — a struct with no declaredadditionalPropertiesyieldsproperty_schema.additionalProperties == Some(Bool(false)), neverNone.So
old_additionalis alwaysSome(...)for object options, and theNone → Sometransition the suggestion is worried about can't occur. The suggestedold_additional.is_some() && old_additional != new_additionalguard would be a no-op (is_some()is always true), and wouldn't change behavior even for the "addadditionalPropertiesto a fixed struct" case — that goes fromSome(false)toSome({...}), which is still!=.That's also intentional: converting a strict struct into an open struct+map is a shape change, and the existing policy flags any object shape change as breaking (e.g. even adding a field, per
test_object_shape_change_fails). The array-itemis_some()guard exists only to avoid double-flagging scalar array items (which have no injectedadditionalProperties) that are already caught by the item-type check — there's no analogous scalar case for a top-level object option.Generated by Claude Code