JSON Schema conditional: require and not require
question 1.I'm trying to implement this condition: if a special property exist another property require but if it is not exist another one not require
question 2.in json schema can we use not in dependencies?
Here is a sample schema
var schema = {
"properties": {
"smaller": {
"type": "number"
},
"larger": { "type": "number" },
"medium":{'type':'string'},
"bulky":{'type':'string'}
},
require:['smaller','larger'],
additionalProperties:false
};
if "medium" then require "bulky" else not require bulky.
here "not require" means that if "medium" dont exist then bulky " must not be present"
jsonschema
add a comment |
question 1.I'm trying to implement this condition: if a special property exist another property require but if it is not exist another one not require
question 2.in json schema can we use not in dependencies?
Here is a sample schema
var schema = {
"properties": {
"smaller": {
"type": "number"
},
"larger": { "type": "number" },
"medium":{'type':'string'},
"bulky":{'type':'string'}
},
require:['smaller','larger'],
additionalProperties:false
};
if "medium" then require "bulky" else not require bulky.
here "not require" means that if "medium" dont exist then bulky " must not be present"
jsonschema
It'd help if you mention for which draft version of JSON SCHEMA it'd be shaped and provide sample JSON doc.
– PsychoFish
Nov 21 at 0:42
for draft-6 - here "not require" means that if "medium" dont exist then bulky " must not be present"
– h.ataie
Nov 21 at 8:36
See updated answer. If I understood your update correctly, this might answer your question.
– PsychoFish
Nov 21 at 16:37
add a comment |
question 1.I'm trying to implement this condition: if a special property exist another property require but if it is not exist another one not require
question 2.in json schema can we use not in dependencies?
Here is a sample schema
var schema = {
"properties": {
"smaller": {
"type": "number"
},
"larger": { "type": "number" },
"medium":{'type':'string'},
"bulky":{'type':'string'}
},
require:['smaller','larger'],
additionalProperties:false
};
if "medium" then require "bulky" else not require bulky.
here "not require" means that if "medium" dont exist then bulky " must not be present"
jsonschema
question 1.I'm trying to implement this condition: if a special property exist another property require but if it is not exist another one not require
question 2.in json schema can we use not in dependencies?
Here is a sample schema
var schema = {
"properties": {
"smaller": {
"type": "number"
},
"larger": { "type": "number" },
"medium":{'type':'string'},
"bulky":{'type':'string'}
},
require:['smaller','larger'],
additionalProperties:false
};
if "medium" then require "bulky" else not require bulky.
here "not require" means that if "medium" dont exist then bulky " must not be present"
jsonschema
jsonschema
edited Nov 21 at 8:38
asked Nov 20 at 17:36
h.ataie
33
33
It'd help if you mention for which draft version of JSON SCHEMA it'd be shaped and provide sample JSON doc.
– PsychoFish
Nov 21 at 0:42
for draft-6 - here "not require" means that if "medium" dont exist then bulky " must not be present"
– h.ataie
Nov 21 at 8:36
See updated answer. If I understood your update correctly, this might answer your question.
– PsychoFish
Nov 21 at 16:37
add a comment |
It'd help if you mention for which draft version of JSON SCHEMA it'd be shaped and provide sample JSON doc.
– PsychoFish
Nov 21 at 0:42
for draft-6 - here "not require" means that if "medium" dont exist then bulky " must not be present"
– h.ataie
Nov 21 at 8:36
See updated answer. If I understood your update correctly, this might answer your question.
– PsychoFish
Nov 21 at 16:37
It'd help if you mention for which draft version of JSON SCHEMA it'd be shaped and provide sample JSON doc.
– PsychoFish
Nov 21 at 0:42
It'd help if you mention for which draft version of JSON SCHEMA it'd be shaped and provide sample JSON doc.
– PsychoFish
Nov 21 at 0:42
for draft-6 - here "not require" means that if "medium" dont exist then bulky " must not be present"
– h.ataie
Nov 21 at 8:36
for draft-6 - here "not require" means that if "medium" dont exist then bulky " must not be present"
– h.ataie
Nov 21 at 8:36
See updated answer. If I understood your update correctly, this might answer your question.
– PsychoFish
Nov 21 at 16:37
See updated answer. If I understood your update correctly, this might answer your question.
– PsychoFish
Nov 21 at 16:37
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
There are several ways to achieve required effect even not using JSON Schema draft-07 if-then-else.
logical operator and implication (draft-04 and above)
A logical implication here: if "medium" present then "bulky" is required can be translated to "medium" not present OR "bulky" is "required" (the latter implicates "medium" is present) which can be further elaborated to "medium" not required OR "bulky" is "required" (since if "medium" is present, it will satisfy condition of being required). See below schema:
"properties": {
"smaller": {"type": "number"},
"larger": { "type": "number" },
"medium":{"type":"string"},
"bulky":{"type":"string"}
},
"required":["smaller","larger"],
"anyOf" : [
{
"not" : { "required" : ["medium"] }
},
{
"required" : ["bulky"]
}
],
"additionalProperties" : false
Check here for reference:
JSON schema - valid if object does *not* contain a particular property
http://json-schema.org/latest/json-schema-validation.html#rfc.section.6.7
"anyOf" - logical OR, "oneOf" - XOR, "allOf" - AND, "not" - negation, yet pay attention to spec:
An instance is valid against this keyword if it fails to validate successfully against the schema defined by this keyword.
draft-06 - dependencies + propertyNames
Most obvious. I am not sure if you excluded this one in your question, so putting here just in case. Please note, that instead of "additionalProperties", if you wan't simply to limit valid keys, "propertyNames" could be used (and is actually what it was added for).
"properties": {
"smaller": {"type": "number"},
"larger": { "type": "number" },
"medium":{"type":"string"},
"bulky":{"type":"string"}
},
"required":["smaller","larger"],
"dependencies" : {
"medium" : ["bulky"]
},
"propertyNames" : {
"enum" : [
"smaller",
"larger",
"medium",
"bulky"
]
}
Check here for reference: http://json-schema.org/latest/json-schema-validation.html#rfc.section.6.5.7
Update
After clarification in comment:
for draft-6 - here "not require" means that if "medium" dont exist then bulky " must not be present"
"must not" means preventing bulky being present.
I will rephrase your condition:
1. if "medium" exists "bulky" must be present -> both keys must be present at the same time
2. if "medium" does not exist "bulky" must not be present as well -> both keys must not be present at the same time
Can "bulky" exist and "medium" does not exist?
No. See 2. And vice versa (see 1.). Boolean equality (complementary to logical XOR).
Thus if "bulky" exists - it means "medium" must be always there... It implies that both are required or both must not be required (or even allowed).
Since it's draft-06, you can use also "propertyNames" for defining allowed property names (kind of shortcut to this logic).
logical operator and implication (draft-06 and above)
The proper logical operation translated to JSOn Schema would look like:
"oneOf" : [
{ "required" : ["medium","bulky"] }, <== this schema is satisfied if both keys appear in validated instance
{
"allOf" : [ <== !medium ^ !bulky - due to how "not" works in schema context
{"not" : { "required" : ["medium"] } },
{"not" : { "required" : ["bulky"] } },
]
}
]
An XOR - EITHER (both required) OR (medium not required AND bulky not required).
Please note I am not doing "not" : { "required" : ["medium","bulky"] } as when just one of those keys is present, "required" schema would fail which would mean "not" would return successfull validation result. One needs to rephrase it using de Morgans laws:
"oneOf" : [
{ "required" : ["medium","bulky"] },
{
"not" : { <=== !medium ^ !bulky = !(medium v bulky)
"anyOf" : [
{ "required" : ["medium"] },
{ "required" : ["bulky"] },
]
}
}
]
However using "propertyNames" will also do the trick.
See following schema:
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-06/schema#",
"properties": {
"smaller": {"type": "number"},
"larger": { "type": "number" },
"medium":{"type":"string"},
"bulky":{"type":"string"}
},
"required":["smaller","larger"],
"anyOf" : [
{
"required" : ["medium","bulky"]
},
{
"propertyNames" : {
"enum" : [
"smaller",
"larger"
]
},
}
],
"examples" : [
{
"smaller" : 1,
"larger" : 2,
},
{
"smaller" : 1,
"larger" : 2,
"bulky" : "test",
"medium" : ""
},
{
"smaller" : 1,
"larger" : 2,
"medium" : ""
},
{
"smaller" : 1,
"larger" : 2,
"bulky" : "test",
},
]
}
Does it answer your question?
1
tanx very much.its working
– h.ataie
Nov 22 at 4:50
Glad I could help. If I may suggest something for the future: try to write down your conditions in terms of Boolean expressions. Properly describing topic often reveals solution straight away.
– PsychoFish
Nov 23 at 15:33
add a comment |
JSON Schema Draft-07 has included these new keywords if, then and else which allow you to have conditional schemas.
In this example:
- Only the
fooproperty is required - However if
foois set to"bar"then thebarproperty also becomes required
var ajv = new Ajv({
allErrors: true
});
var schema = {
"properties": {
"foo": {
"type": "string"
},
"bar": {
"type": "string"
},
},
"required": ["foo"],
"if": {
"properties": {
"foo": {
"enum": ["bar"]
}
}
},
"then": {
"required": ["bar"]
}
}
var validate = ajv.compile(schema);
test({
"foo": "bar",
"bar": "baz"
}); // VALID
test({
"foo": "xyz"
}); // VALID
test({
"foo": "bar",
}); // NOT VALID
function test(data) {
var valid = validate(data);
if (valid) console.log('VALID', data);
else console.log('NOT VALID', data);
}<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ajv/6.5.5/ajv.min.js"></script>Hopefully this makes sense and you can adapt your code accordingly.
PS: in your schema you have the require property which I'm not sure is a valid JSON Schema keyword. You probably meant required instead.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53398519%2fjson-schema-conditional-require-and-not-require%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There are several ways to achieve required effect even not using JSON Schema draft-07 if-then-else.
logical operator and implication (draft-04 and above)
A logical implication here: if "medium" present then "bulky" is required can be translated to "medium" not present OR "bulky" is "required" (the latter implicates "medium" is present) which can be further elaborated to "medium" not required OR "bulky" is "required" (since if "medium" is present, it will satisfy condition of being required). See below schema:
"properties": {
"smaller": {"type": "number"},
"larger": { "type": "number" },
"medium":{"type":"string"},
"bulky":{"type":"string"}
},
"required":["smaller","larger"],
"anyOf" : [
{
"not" : { "required" : ["medium"] }
},
{
"required" : ["bulky"]
}
],
"additionalProperties" : false
Check here for reference:
JSON schema - valid if object does *not* contain a particular property
http://json-schema.org/latest/json-schema-validation.html#rfc.section.6.7
"anyOf" - logical OR, "oneOf" - XOR, "allOf" - AND, "not" - negation, yet pay attention to spec:
An instance is valid against this keyword if it fails to validate successfully against the schema defined by this keyword.
draft-06 - dependencies + propertyNames
Most obvious. I am not sure if you excluded this one in your question, so putting here just in case. Please note, that instead of "additionalProperties", if you wan't simply to limit valid keys, "propertyNames" could be used (and is actually what it was added for).
"properties": {
"smaller": {"type": "number"},
"larger": { "type": "number" },
"medium":{"type":"string"},
"bulky":{"type":"string"}
},
"required":["smaller","larger"],
"dependencies" : {
"medium" : ["bulky"]
},
"propertyNames" : {
"enum" : [
"smaller",
"larger",
"medium",
"bulky"
]
}
Check here for reference: http://json-schema.org/latest/json-schema-validation.html#rfc.section.6.5.7
Update
After clarification in comment:
for draft-6 - here "not require" means that if "medium" dont exist then bulky " must not be present"
"must not" means preventing bulky being present.
I will rephrase your condition:
1. if "medium" exists "bulky" must be present -> both keys must be present at the same time
2. if "medium" does not exist "bulky" must not be present as well -> both keys must not be present at the same time
Can "bulky" exist and "medium" does not exist?
No. See 2. And vice versa (see 1.). Boolean equality (complementary to logical XOR).
Thus if "bulky" exists - it means "medium" must be always there... It implies that both are required or both must not be required (or even allowed).
Since it's draft-06, you can use also "propertyNames" for defining allowed property names (kind of shortcut to this logic).
logical operator and implication (draft-06 and above)
The proper logical operation translated to JSOn Schema would look like:
"oneOf" : [
{ "required" : ["medium","bulky"] }, <== this schema is satisfied if both keys appear in validated instance
{
"allOf" : [ <== !medium ^ !bulky - due to how "not" works in schema context
{"not" : { "required" : ["medium"] } },
{"not" : { "required" : ["bulky"] } },
]
}
]
An XOR - EITHER (both required) OR (medium not required AND bulky not required).
Please note I am not doing "not" : { "required" : ["medium","bulky"] } as when just one of those keys is present, "required" schema would fail which would mean "not" would return successfull validation result. One needs to rephrase it using de Morgans laws:
"oneOf" : [
{ "required" : ["medium","bulky"] },
{
"not" : { <=== !medium ^ !bulky = !(medium v bulky)
"anyOf" : [
{ "required" : ["medium"] },
{ "required" : ["bulky"] },
]
}
}
]
However using "propertyNames" will also do the trick.
See following schema:
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-06/schema#",
"properties": {
"smaller": {"type": "number"},
"larger": { "type": "number" },
"medium":{"type":"string"},
"bulky":{"type":"string"}
},
"required":["smaller","larger"],
"anyOf" : [
{
"required" : ["medium","bulky"]
},
{
"propertyNames" : {
"enum" : [
"smaller",
"larger"
]
},
}
],
"examples" : [
{
"smaller" : 1,
"larger" : 2,
},
{
"smaller" : 1,
"larger" : 2,
"bulky" : "test",
"medium" : ""
},
{
"smaller" : 1,
"larger" : 2,
"medium" : ""
},
{
"smaller" : 1,
"larger" : 2,
"bulky" : "test",
},
]
}
Does it answer your question?
1
tanx very much.its working
– h.ataie
Nov 22 at 4:50
Glad I could help. If I may suggest something for the future: try to write down your conditions in terms of Boolean expressions. Properly describing topic often reveals solution straight away.
– PsychoFish
Nov 23 at 15:33
add a comment |
There are several ways to achieve required effect even not using JSON Schema draft-07 if-then-else.
logical operator and implication (draft-04 and above)
A logical implication here: if "medium" present then "bulky" is required can be translated to "medium" not present OR "bulky" is "required" (the latter implicates "medium" is present) which can be further elaborated to "medium" not required OR "bulky" is "required" (since if "medium" is present, it will satisfy condition of being required). See below schema:
"properties": {
"smaller": {"type": "number"},
"larger": { "type": "number" },
"medium":{"type":"string"},
"bulky":{"type":"string"}
},
"required":["smaller","larger"],
"anyOf" : [
{
"not" : { "required" : ["medium"] }
},
{
"required" : ["bulky"]
}
],
"additionalProperties" : false
Check here for reference:
JSON schema - valid if object does *not* contain a particular property
http://json-schema.org/latest/json-schema-validation.html#rfc.section.6.7
"anyOf" - logical OR, "oneOf" - XOR, "allOf" - AND, "not" - negation, yet pay attention to spec:
An instance is valid against this keyword if it fails to validate successfully against the schema defined by this keyword.
draft-06 - dependencies + propertyNames
Most obvious. I am not sure if you excluded this one in your question, so putting here just in case. Please note, that instead of "additionalProperties", if you wan't simply to limit valid keys, "propertyNames" could be used (and is actually what it was added for).
"properties": {
"smaller": {"type": "number"},
"larger": { "type": "number" },
"medium":{"type":"string"},
"bulky":{"type":"string"}
},
"required":["smaller","larger"],
"dependencies" : {
"medium" : ["bulky"]
},
"propertyNames" : {
"enum" : [
"smaller",
"larger",
"medium",
"bulky"
]
}
Check here for reference: http://json-schema.org/latest/json-schema-validation.html#rfc.section.6.5.7
Update
After clarification in comment:
for draft-6 - here "not require" means that if "medium" dont exist then bulky " must not be present"
"must not" means preventing bulky being present.
I will rephrase your condition:
1. if "medium" exists "bulky" must be present -> both keys must be present at the same time
2. if "medium" does not exist "bulky" must not be present as well -> both keys must not be present at the same time
Can "bulky" exist and "medium" does not exist?
No. See 2. And vice versa (see 1.). Boolean equality (complementary to logical XOR).
Thus if "bulky" exists - it means "medium" must be always there... It implies that both are required or both must not be required (or even allowed).
Since it's draft-06, you can use also "propertyNames" for defining allowed property names (kind of shortcut to this logic).
logical operator and implication (draft-06 and above)
The proper logical operation translated to JSOn Schema would look like:
"oneOf" : [
{ "required" : ["medium","bulky"] }, <== this schema is satisfied if both keys appear in validated instance
{
"allOf" : [ <== !medium ^ !bulky - due to how "not" works in schema context
{"not" : { "required" : ["medium"] } },
{"not" : { "required" : ["bulky"] } },
]
}
]
An XOR - EITHER (both required) OR (medium not required AND bulky not required).
Please note I am not doing "not" : { "required" : ["medium","bulky"] } as when just one of those keys is present, "required" schema would fail which would mean "not" would return successfull validation result. One needs to rephrase it using de Morgans laws:
"oneOf" : [
{ "required" : ["medium","bulky"] },
{
"not" : { <=== !medium ^ !bulky = !(medium v bulky)
"anyOf" : [
{ "required" : ["medium"] },
{ "required" : ["bulky"] },
]
}
}
]
However using "propertyNames" will also do the trick.
See following schema:
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-06/schema#",
"properties": {
"smaller": {"type": "number"},
"larger": { "type": "number" },
"medium":{"type":"string"},
"bulky":{"type":"string"}
},
"required":["smaller","larger"],
"anyOf" : [
{
"required" : ["medium","bulky"]
},
{
"propertyNames" : {
"enum" : [
"smaller",
"larger"
]
},
}
],
"examples" : [
{
"smaller" : 1,
"larger" : 2,
},
{
"smaller" : 1,
"larger" : 2,
"bulky" : "test",
"medium" : ""
},
{
"smaller" : 1,
"larger" : 2,
"medium" : ""
},
{
"smaller" : 1,
"larger" : 2,
"bulky" : "test",
},
]
}
Does it answer your question?
1
tanx very much.its working
– h.ataie
Nov 22 at 4:50
Glad I could help. If I may suggest something for the future: try to write down your conditions in terms of Boolean expressions. Properly describing topic often reveals solution straight away.
– PsychoFish
Nov 23 at 15:33
add a comment |
There are several ways to achieve required effect even not using JSON Schema draft-07 if-then-else.
logical operator and implication (draft-04 and above)
A logical implication here: if "medium" present then "bulky" is required can be translated to "medium" not present OR "bulky" is "required" (the latter implicates "medium" is present) which can be further elaborated to "medium" not required OR "bulky" is "required" (since if "medium" is present, it will satisfy condition of being required). See below schema:
"properties": {
"smaller": {"type": "number"},
"larger": { "type": "number" },
"medium":{"type":"string"},
"bulky":{"type":"string"}
},
"required":["smaller","larger"],
"anyOf" : [
{
"not" : { "required" : ["medium"] }
},
{
"required" : ["bulky"]
}
],
"additionalProperties" : false
Check here for reference:
JSON schema - valid if object does *not* contain a particular property
http://json-schema.org/latest/json-schema-validation.html#rfc.section.6.7
"anyOf" - logical OR, "oneOf" - XOR, "allOf" - AND, "not" - negation, yet pay attention to spec:
An instance is valid against this keyword if it fails to validate successfully against the schema defined by this keyword.
draft-06 - dependencies + propertyNames
Most obvious. I am not sure if you excluded this one in your question, so putting here just in case. Please note, that instead of "additionalProperties", if you wan't simply to limit valid keys, "propertyNames" could be used (and is actually what it was added for).
"properties": {
"smaller": {"type": "number"},
"larger": { "type": "number" },
"medium":{"type":"string"},
"bulky":{"type":"string"}
},
"required":["smaller","larger"],
"dependencies" : {
"medium" : ["bulky"]
},
"propertyNames" : {
"enum" : [
"smaller",
"larger",
"medium",
"bulky"
]
}
Check here for reference: http://json-schema.org/latest/json-schema-validation.html#rfc.section.6.5.7
Update
After clarification in comment:
for draft-6 - here "not require" means that if "medium" dont exist then bulky " must not be present"
"must not" means preventing bulky being present.
I will rephrase your condition:
1. if "medium" exists "bulky" must be present -> both keys must be present at the same time
2. if "medium" does not exist "bulky" must not be present as well -> both keys must not be present at the same time
Can "bulky" exist and "medium" does not exist?
No. See 2. And vice versa (see 1.). Boolean equality (complementary to logical XOR).
Thus if "bulky" exists - it means "medium" must be always there... It implies that both are required or both must not be required (or even allowed).
Since it's draft-06, you can use also "propertyNames" for defining allowed property names (kind of shortcut to this logic).
logical operator and implication (draft-06 and above)
The proper logical operation translated to JSOn Schema would look like:
"oneOf" : [
{ "required" : ["medium","bulky"] }, <== this schema is satisfied if both keys appear in validated instance
{
"allOf" : [ <== !medium ^ !bulky - due to how "not" works in schema context
{"not" : { "required" : ["medium"] } },
{"not" : { "required" : ["bulky"] } },
]
}
]
An XOR - EITHER (both required) OR (medium not required AND bulky not required).
Please note I am not doing "not" : { "required" : ["medium","bulky"] } as when just one of those keys is present, "required" schema would fail which would mean "not" would return successfull validation result. One needs to rephrase it using de Morgans laws:
"oneOf" : [
{ "required" : ["medium","bulky"] },
{
"not" : { <=== !medium ^ !bulky = !(medium v bulky)
"anyOf" : [
{ "required" : ["medium"] },
{ "required" : ["bulky"] },
]
}
}
]
However using "propertyNames" will also do the trick.
See following schema:
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-06/schema#",
"properties": {
"smaller": {"type": "number"},
"larger": { "type": "number" },
"medium":{"type":"string"},
"bulky":{"type":"string"}
},
"required":["smaller","larger"],
"anyOf" : [
{
"required" : ["medium","bulky"]
},
{
"propertyNames" : {
"enum" : [
"smaller",
"larger"
]
},
}
],
"examples" : [
{
"smaller" : 1,
"larger" : 2,
},
{
"smaller" : 1,
"larger" : 2,
"bulky" : "test",
"medium" : ""
},
{
"smaller" : 1,
"larger" : 2,
"medium" : ""
},
{
"smaller" : 1,
"larger" : 2,
"bulky" : "test",
},
]
}
Does it answer your question?
There are several ways to achieve required effect even not using JSON Schema draft-07 if-then-else.
logical operator and implication (draft-04 and above)
A logical implication here: if "medium" present then "bulky" is required can be translated to "medium" not present OR "bulky" is "required" (the latter implicates "medium" is present) which can be further elaborated to "medium" not required OR "bulky" is "required" (since if "medium" is present, it will satisfy condition of being required). See below schema:
"properties": {
"smaller": {"type": "number"},
"larger": { "type": "number" },
"medium":{"type":"string"},
"bulky":{"type":"string"}
},
"required":["smaller","larger"],
"anyOf" : [
{
"not" : { "required" : ["medium"] }
},
{
"required" : ["bulky"]
}
],
"additionalProperties" : false
Check here for reference:
JSON schema - valid if object does *not* contain a particular property
http://json-schema.org/latest/json-schema-validation.html#rfc.section.6.7
"anyOf" - logical OR, "oneOf" - XOR, "allOf" - AND, "not" - negation, yet pay attention to spec:
An instance is valid against this keyword if it fails to validate successfully against the schema defined by this keyword.
draft-06 - dependencies + propertyNames
Most obvious. I am not sure if you excluded this one in your question, so putting here just in case. Please note, that instead of "additionalProperties", if you wan't simply to limit valid keys, "propertyNames" could be used (and is actually what it was added for).
"properties": {
"smaller": {"type": "number"},
"larger": { "type": "number" },
"medium":{"type":"string"},
"bulky":{"type":"string"}
},
"required":["smaller","larger"],
"dependencies" : {
"medium" : ["bulky"]
},
"propertyNames" : {
"enum" : [
"smaller",
"larger",
"medium",
"bulky"
]
}
Check here for reference: http://json-schema.org/latest/json-schema-validation.html#rfc.section.6.5.7
Update
After clarification in comment:
for draft-6 - here "not require" means that if "medium" dont exist then bulky " must not be present"
"must not" means preventing bulky being present.
I will rephrase your condition:
1. if "medium" exists "bulky" must be present -> both keys must be present at the same time
2. if "medium" does not exist "bulky" must not be present as well -> both keys must not be present at the same time
Can "bulky" exist and "medium" does not exist?
No. See 2. And vice versa (see 1.). Boolean equality (complementary to logical XOR).
Thus if "bulky" exists - it means "medium" must be always there... It implies that both are required or both must not be required (or even allowed).
Since it's draft-06, you can use also "propertyNames" for defining allowed property names (kind of shortcut to this logic).
logical operator and implication (draft-06 and above)
The proper logical operation translated to JSOn Schema would look like:
"oneOf" : [
{ "required" : ["medium","bulky"] }, <== this schema is satisfied if both keys appear in validated instance
{
"allOf" : [ <== !medium ^ !bulky - due to how "not" works in schema context
{"not" : { "required" : ["medium"] } },
{"not" : { "required" : ["bulky"] } },
]
}
]
An XOR - EITHER (both required) OR (medium not required AND bulky not required).
Please note I am not doing "not" : { "required" : ["medium","bulky"] } as when just one of those keys is present, "required" schema would fail which would mean "not" would return successfull validation result. One needs to rephrase it using de Morgans laws:
"oneOf" : [
{ "required" : ["medium","bulky"] },
{
"not" : { <=== !medium ^ !bulky = !(medium v bulky)
"anyOf" : [
{ "required" : ["medium"] },
{ "required" : ["bulky"] },
]
}
}
]
However using "propertyNames" will also do the trick.
See following schema:
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-06/schema#",
"properties": {
"smaller": {"type": "number"},
"larger": { "type": "number" },
"medium":{"type":"string"},
"bulky":{"type":"string"}
},
"required":["smaller","larger"],
"anyOf" : [
{
"required" : ["medium","bulky"]
},
{
"propertyNames" : {
"enum" : [
"smaller",
"larger"
]
},
}
],
"examples" : [
{
"smaller" : 1,
"larger" : 2,
},
{
"smaller" : 1,
"larger" : 2,
"bulky" : "test",
"medium" : ""
},
{
"smaller" : 1,
"larger" : 2,
"medium" : ""
},
{
"smaller" : 1,
"larger" : 2,
"bulky" : "test",
},
]
}
Does it answer your question?
edited Nov 21 at 16:59
answered Nov 21 at 1:11
PsychoFish
82199
82199
1
tanx very much.its working
– h.ataie
Nov 22 at 4:50
Glad I could help. If I may suggest something for the future: try to write down your conditions in terms of Boolean expressions. Properly describing topic often reveals solution straight away.
– PsychoFish
Nov 23 at 15:33
add a comment |
1
tanx very much.its working
– h.ataie
Nov 22 at 4:50
Glad I could help. If I may suggest something for the future: try to write down your conditions in terms of Boolean expressions. Properly describing topic often reveals solution straight away.
– PsychoFish
Nov 23 at 15:33
1
1
tanx very much.its working
– h.ataie
Nov 22 at 4:50
tanx very much.its working
– h.ataie
Nov 22 at 4:50
Glad I could help. If I may suggest something for the future: try to write down your conditions in terms of Boolean expressions. Properly describing topic often reveals solution straight away.
– PsychoFish
Nov 23 at 15:33
Glad I could help. If I may suggest something for the future: try to write down your conditions in terms of Boolean expressions. Properly describing topic often reveals solution straight away.
– PsychoFish
Nov 23 at 15:33
add a comment |
JSON Schema Draft-07 has included these new keywords if, then and else which allow you to have conditional schemas.
In this example:
- Only the
fooproperty is required - However if
foois set to"bar"then thebarproperty also becomes required
var ajv = new Ajv({
allErrors: true
});
var schema = {
"properties": {
"foo": {
"type": "string"
},
"bar": {
"type": "string"
},
},
"required": ["foo"],
"if": {
"properties": {
"foo": {
"enum": ["bar"]
}
}
},
"then": {
"required": ["bar"]
}
}
var validate = ajv.compile(schema);
test({
"foo": "bar",
"bar": "baz"
}); // VALID
test({
"foo": "xyz"
}); // VALID
test({
"foo": "bar",
}); // NOT VALID
function test(data) {
var valid = validate(data);
if (valid) console.log('VALID', data);
else console.log('NOT VALID', data);
}<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ajv/6.5.5/ajv.min.js"></script>Hopefully this makes sense and you can adapt your code accordingly.
PS: in your schema you have the require property which I'm not sure is a valid JSON Schema keyword. You probably meant required instead.
add a comment |
JSON Schema Draft-07 has included these new keywords if, then and else which allow you to have conditional schemas.
In this example:
- Only the
fooproperty is required - However if
foois set to"bar"then thebarproperty also becomes required
var ajv = new Ajv({
allErrors: true
});
var schema = {
"properties": {
"foo": {
"type": "string"
},
"bar": {
"type": "string"
},
},
"required": ["foo"],
"if": {
"properties": {
"foo": {
"enum": ["bar"]
}
}
},
"then": {
"required": ["bar"]
}
}
var validate = ajv.compile(schema);
test({
"foo": "bar",
"bar": "baz"
}); // VALID
test({
"foo": "xyz"
}); // VALID
test({
"foo": "bar",
}); // NOT VALID
function test(data) {
var valid = validate(data);
if (valid) console.log('VALID', data);
else console.log('NOT VALID', data);
}<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ajv/6.5.5/ajv.min.js"></script>Hopefully this makes sense and you can adapt your code accordingly.
PS: in your schema you have the require property which I'm not sure is a valid JSON Schema keyword. You probably meant required instead.
add a comment |
JSON Schema Draft-07 has included these new keywords if, then and else which allow you to have conditional schemas.
In this example:
- Only the
fooproperty is required - However if
foois set to"bar"then thebarproperty also becomes required
var ajv = new Ajv({
allErrors: true
});
var schema = {
"properties": {
"foo": {
"type": "string"
},
"bar": {
"type": "string"
},
},
"required": ["foo"],
"if": {
"properties": {
"foo": {
"enum": ["bar"]
}
}
},
"then": {
"required": ["bar"]
}
}
var validate = ajv.compile(schema);
test({
"foo": "bar",
"bar": "baz"
}); // VALID
test({
"foo": "xyz"
}); // VALID
test({
"foo": "bar",
}); // NOT VALID
function test(data) {
var valid = validate(data);
if (valid) console.log('VALID', data);
else console.log('NOT VALID', data);
}<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ajv/6.5.5/ajv.min.js"></script>Hopefully this makes sense and you can adapt your code accordingly.
PS: in your schema you have the require property which I'm not sure is a valid JSON Schema keyword. You probably meant required instead.
JSON Schema Draft-07 has included these new keywords if, then and else which allow you to have conditional schemas.
In this example:
- Only the
fooproperty is required - However if
foois set to"bar"then thebarproperty also becomes required
var ajv = new Ajv({
allErrors: true
});
var schema = {
"properties": {
"foo": {
"type": "string"
},
"bar": {
"type": "string"
},
},
"required": ["foo"],
"if": {
"properties": {
"foo": {
"enum": ["bar"]
}
}
},
"then": {
"required": ["bar"]
}
}
var validate = ajv.compile(schema);
test({
"foo": "bar",
"bar": "baz"
}); // VALID
test({
"foo": "xyz"
}); // VALID
test({
"foo": "bar",
}); // NOT VALID
function test(data) {
var valid = validate(data);
if (valid) console.log('VALID', data);
else console.log('NOT VALID', data);
}<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ajv/6.5.5/ajv.min.js"></script>Hopefully this makes sense and you can adapt your code accordingly.
PS: in your schema you have the require property which I'm not sure is a valid JSON Schema keyword. You probably meant required instead.
var ajv = new Ajv({
allErrors: true
});
var schema = {
"properties": {
"foo": {
"type": "string"
},
"bar": {
"type": "string"
},
},
"required": ["foo"],
"if": {
"properties": {
"foo": {
"enum": ["bar"]
}
}
},
"then": {
"required": ["bar"]
}
}
var validate = ajv.compile(schema);
test({
"foo": "bar",
"bar": "baz"
}); // VALID
test({
"foo": "xyz"
}); // VALID
test({
"foo": "bar",
}); // NOT VALID
function test(data) {
var valid = validate(data);
if (valid) console.log('VALID', data);
else console.log('NOT VALID', data);
}<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ajv/6.5.5/ajv.min.js"></script>var ajv = new Ajv({
allErrors: true
});
var schema = {
"properties": {
"foo": {
"type": "string"
},
"bar": {
"type": "string"
},
},
"required": ["foo"],
"if": {
"properties": {
"foo": {
"enum": ["bar"]
}
}
},
"then": {
"required": ["bar"]
}
}
var validate = ajv.compile(schema);
test({
"foo": "bar",
"bar": "baz"
}); // VALID
test({
"foo": "xyz"
}); // VALID
test({
"foo": "bar",
}); // NOT VALID
function test(data) {
var valid = validate(data);
if (valid) console.log('VALID', data);
else console.log('NOT VALID', data);
}<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ajv/6.5.5/ajv.min.js"></script>answered Nov 20 at 21:27
customcommander
1,173617
1,173617
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53398519%2fjson-schema-conditional-require-and-not-require%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
It'd help if you mention for which draft version of JSON SCHEMA it'd be shaped and provide sample JSON doc.
– PsychoFish
Nov 21 at 0:42
for draft-6 - here "not require" means that if "medium" dont exist then bulky " must not be present"
– h.ataie
Nov 21 at 8:36
See updated answer. If I understood your update correctly, this might answer your question.
– PsychoFish
Nov 21 at 16:37