Built-in format checker changes about jsonschema HOT 10 CLOSED

Not having format checkers present when the required dependencies aren't satisfied doesn't bother me that much. If anything we could improve the documentation if you think there's something there that could be clearer. We could perhaps more prominently discuss the attribute on format checkers that contains all the known checkers, which is public and could be used to inspect the available checkers.

Putting all the format checkers in the class though is fine with me if we have a reasonable way of doing that.

Since this is mostly for our own sanity this is pretty low priority I'm guessing.

from jsonschema.

Since this is mostly for our own sanity this is pretty low priority I'm guessing.

My goal was so that an user can instantiate a FormatChecker with the subset of properties they desire. Right now you can't do FormatChecker(formats=('time', 'email')) because 'time' checker is just in the draft3_format_checker instance, not on the class.
I'll have another go at doing this.

from jsonschema.

What do you think about something like this? gazpachoking@b0a694f

from jsonschema.

Or maybe _checks_drafts should be usable like @_checks_drafts("email", raises=blah) for checkers on both drafts, and @_checks_drafts(draft3="ip-address", draft4="ipv4", raises=blah) for checkers on draft 3 only or when the name differs.

from jsonschema.

Um, I'm OK with that.

from jsonschema.

You sound hesitant...

from jsonschema.

:) nah. We should document the canonical names for the format checkers.
Other than that I'm not hesitant, just not particularly excited :p.
On Apr 11, 2013 9:08 AM, "Chase Sterling" [email protected] wrote:

You sound hesitant...

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/78#issuecomment-16233127
.

from jsonschema.

The way I have it now puts both names onto the class, should it only add the canonical name? That might complicated things a bit.

BTW, do you prefer _checks_drafts like I have it, or the keyword idea?

from jsonschema.

Slight preference for the keyword way, but it's private so I don't really
care either way too strongly.

And yeah I saw both names are going to be on the class, but we should have
a table somewhere in the documentation where we mention format validation
and that table should list a single name for simplicity I think.
On Apr 11, 2013 9:16 AM, "Chase Sterling" [email protected] wrote:

The way I have it now puts both names onto the class, should it only add
the canonical name? That might complicated things a bit.

BTW, do you prefer _checks_drafts like I have it, or the keyword idea?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/78#issuecomment-16233571
.

from jsonschema.

Sounds good.

from jsonschema.