Skip to content

Support online validation for CKAN entries? #1761

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

Closed
janbrohl opened this issue May 30, 2016 · 12 comments
Closed

Support online validation for CKAN entries? #1761

janbrohl opened this issue May 30, 2016 · 12 comments
Labels
Discussion needed Enhancement New features or functionality

Comments

@janbrohl
Copy link
Contributor

On www.jsonschemavalidator.net there is a free online schema-validator that can be used to validate CKAN entries (against CKAN.schema).

While it is totally possible to copy the schema into the form by hand, this tool and several others (including Visual Studio) could greatly profit if the schema would be added on www.schemastore.org/json/

This seems to be only one pull request (to https://github.com/schemastore/schemastore/ ) away

@politas
Copy link
Member

politas commented May 31, 2016

How could we best use the results of the validation to improve our processes?

@janbrohl
Copy link
Contributor Author

Validation results are useful for people editing CKAN-files by hand or working with/on tools that work with them - like those suggested in #1762 for example.

Validating files before sharing/uploading them could help lessen support load on the CKAN team because ckan-files in the wild (not in CKAN-meta as they are validated on addition) would be more valid as the editors get more direct feedback on their errors.

For CKAN-meta no direct additions are allowed anymore but I read that there are other CKAN repositories for which this could be directly useful and for user-made modlists it seems they will not be added to CKAN so they will not run through the netkan-toolchain.

The effect may be small adding the schema to the store should be 5 minutes work maximum - I could do that if you want.

@politas
Copy link
Member

politas commented May 31, 2016

No reason I can see not to. perhaps some relevant changes to the help/wiki pages with links would be good, too.

@janbrohl
Copy link
Contributor Author

janbrohl commented May 31, 2016

Which name and description should I set in the PR? File extension ".ckan" only, right?
I'd link to https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/CKAN/blob/master/CKAN.schema

@politas
Copy link
Member

politas commented May 31, 2016

Yes; that schema is for ckan files, not netkans.

@janbrohl
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sorry - I was wrong.
I have to upload the file. Should I append a version? If yes, which one? 1.18?

File extension is ".ckan" only - not ".json", too?

Actually it is better if a project member makes the PR as discussing would take more time than that.

@mheguy
Copy link
Contributor

mheguy commented May 31, 2016

https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/CKAN/blob/v1.16.1/CKAN.schema would be v1.16. Might be best not to touch v1.18 until it's released.

@janbrohl
Copy link
Contributor Author

PR created as SchemaStore/schemastore/pull/174

@janbrohl
Copy link
Contributor Author

PR was merged :)

@janbrohl
Copy link
Contributor Author

janbrohl commented Jun 1, 2016

KSP-CKAN 1.16 is last in the list at http://www.jsonschemavalidator.net/ (for me) now - you can use it there.

It is also available in Visual Studio 2015 (only version I tested) for validation and autocompletition via the schema-list for JSON files.

@ayan4m1 ayan4m1 added Enhancement New features or functionality Discussion needed labels Aug 3, 2016
@HebaruSan
Copy link
Member

Pull requests for NetKAN and CKAN-meta are validated pretty comprehensively nowadays. Syntax errors are caught, schema problems are caught, dependencies are checked, mods are downloaded and installed. It's pretty thorough.

Does that satisfy this?

@politas
Copy link
Member

politas commented Aug 28, 2018

Between that and @linuxgurugamer 's script, I think we're probably fine to close this.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Discussion needed Enhancement New features or functionality
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants